EEOC V. Federal EXPRESS: Case Study

Derek Brown
Dr. Janet Smith
Employment Law BA370
30 June 2011
EEOC V. FEDERAL EXPRESS The EEOC filed suit complaining that FedEx violated Title I of the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and for discharging him in retaliation for his discrimination complaint. Additionally, the complaint sought compensatory damages (i.e., damages paid to compensate the claimant for actual injury or harms they suffered) and punitive damages (i.e., exemplary damages paid to penalize the defendant) for their alleged failure to act in good faith, and for malice and reckless indifference to his federally-protected rights under the ADA. The district court of Maryland awarded Lockhart the sums of $8,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, based on a jury finding against FedEx for failing to reasonably accommodate Lockhart under the ADA.
The purposes of punitive damages are to punish the defendant for outrageous misconduct and to deter the defendant and others from similar misbehavior in the future.
The nature of the wrongdoing that justifies punitive damages is variable and imprecise. The usual terms that characterize conduct justifying these damages include bad faith, fraud, malice, oppression, outrageous, violent, wanton, wicked, and reckless. These aggravating circumstances typically refer to situations in which the defendant acted intentionally, maliciously, or with utter disregard for the rights and interests of the plaintiff. In this case some of the evidence met the standards were; that decision maker was a principal or served the employed in a managerial capacity; and the employer failed to engage in good faith efforts to comply with the
law. Ronald Lockhart was a deaf package handler employee of FedEx who was able to communicate only through the use of American Sign Language (ASL). Although he was able to perform his job tasks without the aid of an interpreter, he was unable to understand conversation in critical job-related training and safety orientations. Lockhart’s supervisors declined repeated requests from him to provide an ASL interpreter for orientations, or other accommodations such as closed captioned videos. In this case, FedEx challenged the amount of the punitive damages award on the grounds that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to show FedEx acted reprehensibly; (2) the award was unconstitutionally disproportionate to the compensatory damages award; and (3) the District Court erred by upholding the award merely because it was below the statutory damages cap. The Court of Appeals identified five factors to show reprehensibility: (1) physical versus economic harm; (2) whether the conduct involved indifference to health and safety; (3) financial vulnerability of the victim; (4) frequency of misconduct; and (5) whether the defendant knew the conduct was unlawful. It ruled that EEOC presented evidence on all but factor 3, and that was enough for the jury to conclude that FedEx acted reprehensibility. The Court held that under the circumstances a 12.5:1 punitive to compensatory ratio was not disproportionate, and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion upholding it. If the employer is showing a good-faith effort to comply with the ADA, and it is a manager who is making discriminatory decisions, then the employer is not liable and punitive damages cannot be awarded to the plaintiff. However, adopting ADA compliant policies and procedures designed to prohibit discrimination in the workplace is insufficient to escape punitive damages liability; the employer must also take affirmative steps to ensure that managerial staff members are implementing the policies.
Works Cited
J., David. Employment Law for Human Resource Practice. 3rd. Mason, OH: South-Western Pub, 2009. Print.