San Antonio Employment Law Blog : San Antonio Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Thomas Crane Law Firm : South Texas, Bexar County TX Wage & Discrimination Issues

 Well, sanctions were dismissed against Judge Sharon Keller, after all.  See San Antonio Express News story.  A special panel appointed by the Texas Supreme Court agreed with Judge Keller's lawyer that the Judicial Commission could only issue a censure, recommendation for removal or dismissal of the case.  No public warning was possible, said the special panel.  So, the public warning issued by the Judicial Commission was null and void.  

Go figure.  I predicted different results.  See prior post.  One would think that a panel empowered to recommend removal would have the implied power to issue a public warning, a step short of censure or removal.  But, the panel disagreed.  . 

Judge Keller will go forward with a cloud over her head, unfortunately.  She will always be known as the judge who performed imperfectly one time.  The standard for Judges and lawyers is no mistakes. We do err on occasion.  Most mistakes are "fixable" in some way.  Refusing a late filed motion for a man's execution is not. 

We now know that many people are found guilty who were actually innocent.  DNA evidence has overturned too many supposed murder and rape convictions in the past 20 years.  One can only hope that the inmate Judge Keller allowed to be executed was not such a person. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Well, the Texas Supreme Court is again dismantling victim's remedies.  But, this time, they are working against small ranchers.  In Bennett and Bonham Corp. v. Reynolds, the court took away another jury verdict.  This time it was a cattle theft case.  The jury awarded $5,327 in actual losses and $1.25 million in punitive damages.  The Supreme Court considered whether the punitive damages were too high in relation to the actual losses and said the amount was too high.  The court found that the 235:1 ratio was too high.  

Punitive damages are designed to punish a transgressor, beyond mere negligence.  The Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower appeal court and found that Bennett's trangsressions were more about the litigation than about the actual theft.  The two ranching families were neighbors and nursed a long-time feud.  Seventeen head of cattle strayed onto Bennett's property.  Bennett sold them.  Bennett denied to Reynolds knowing anything about them and thus prolonged Reynolds' discovery about the sale for some three months.  Reynolds sued Bennett, who then counter-sued claiming Reynolds had made everything up. 

The Court found that Bennett threatened a witness; attempted to bribe another witness; doctored some photos of the stolen cattle at auction; filed suit against a Reynolds ranch hand; and Bennett tried to meddle with Reynold's registered brand.  All pretty bad stuff. 

But, the Supreme Court found these bad acts occurred during the litigation, not as part of the theft,  So, in a technical ruling, the court found these bad acts essentially did not count for purposes of punitive damages.  There were other ways of dealing with reprehensible litigation tactics, said the court. 

In the Army, we have this marching song which we most often used to sing when we did physical training.  On those long runs, someone would strike up, "We're at it again, on the road....," we would wail.  Well, the Texas Supremes are at it again....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sigh, our Texas Supreme Court is at it again.  In a recent decision, the Court conflated personal injury claims with sexual harassment and other froms of discrimination.  See Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams.  The Court found that claims based on assault and negligent supervision are preempted by the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.  The TCHRA is the state version of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The TCHRA prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, national origin and other classifications.  The Court found that the TCHRA provided the exclusive remedy for all conduct related to discrimination.  Formerly, tort claims or personal injury claims would be in addition to, not in lieu of discrimination claims.  

As the dissent points out, this means that if Joe repeatedly slams Mary up against the wall at work, then Mary can sue Joe for assault and battery.  But, if Joe also gropes Mary while repeatedly slamming her against the wall, then Mary can only sue for discrimination.  One major difference is that the TCHRA is limited to $300,000 in emotional damages and punitive damages. But, a claim based on assault and battery would have limited or no dollar limit.  See dissent.  

The $300,000 cap suffices for many claims.  The $300,000 cap applies to the largest employers.  It includes punitive damages and compensatory damages.  Compensatory damages are intended to compensate a victim for emotional suffering.  But, the cap is not enough for some claims.  For example, would $300,000 be enough in a discrimination case also involving rape? Money never truly compensates for the worst abuses.  But, $300,000 would not be enough damages for some cases.  In the case of Jones v. KBR, the victim was raped repeatedly and then confined in Iraq by her employer.  Would $300,000 be enough for the Jones case?

Or, if the employer has less than 100 employees, the punitive damages and compensatory damages would be capped at $50,000.  Would $50,000 suffice for the worst claims involving rape or assault?

The ruling suggests judicial activism.  The issue was not even addressed by the parties.  The Supreme Court refers to a tangential reference by the employer before the lower court.  But, the issue was not presented before the Supreme Court itself.  

The TCHRA is supposed to track the federal equivalent, Title VII, but this ruling directly contradicts Title VII precedent. 

And, ultimately, in this case, the jury had awarded $3.46 million in punitive damages.  The trial court then converted that award into an award of $425,000 for past compensatory damages and $425,000 in punitive damages, due the cap for personal injury claims.  The Texas Supreme Court once against trumps a jury decision.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link