G.M.M. v. Kimpson
116 F.Supp.3d 126, 2015 WL 4572470 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a tort action, using general statistical data based on a person's race or ethnicity to project lower future earnings or educational attainment, and thereby reduce a damages award, is unconstitutional as it violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution.
Facts:
- Niki Hernandez-Adams and her infant son, G.M.M., were tenants in a Brooklyn apartment owned and leased by Mark Kimpson.
- During the child's gestation, birth, and first year of life, he was exposed to lead dust from lead-based paint in the apartment.
- As a result of the exposure, G.M.M. sustained injuries to his central nervous system and had elevated blood-lead levels.
- The child's family was stable and caring; his father held a baccalaureate degree and his mother held a Master of Fine Arts degree.
- Both of G.M.M.'s parents held responsible, income-generating jobs.
Procedural Posture:
- Niki Hernandez-Adams, on behalf of herself and her son G.M.M., filed a lawsuit against their landlord, Mark Kimpson, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the infant suffered injuries from lead paint exposure in the defendant's apartment.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial in the district court.
- During the trial, while expert witnesses were testifying on the issue of damages, the defendant's counsel sought to introduce statistical evidence based on the plaintiff-child's 'Hispanic' ethnicity to project lower future earnings.
- The trial court judge, on his own motion, made an evidentiary ruling excluding the use of such ethnicity-based statistics and subsequently issued this memorandum and order to explain the legal basis for that ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of general statistical data based on a plaintiff's 'Hispanic' ethnicity to project lower educational and economic achievement, and thereby reduce a damages award in a tort case, violate constitutional principles of equal protection and due process?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Jack B. Weinstein
Yes. It is unconstitutional in a tort trial to premise projected societal and educational achievements on race or ethnicity to reduce damages. The court extends the reasoning from its prior decision in McMillan, which barred the use of race-based life expectancy tables, to also bar the use of ethnicity-based statistics for future earnings and educational attainment. Both race and ethnicity are unreliable social constructs, not scientific predictors of an individual's potential. Judicial reliance on such classifications constitutes state action that triggers strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause; using these statistics to disadvantage a claimant cannot survive this scrutiny as it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Furthermore, it violates the Due Process Clause by constituting arbitrary and irrational state action that infringes on a claimant's property right to fair compensation. An individual's potential must be assessed based on their specific characteristics and family background, not on broad, undifferentiated group averages that perpetuate historical discrimination.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the rule from McMillan v. City of New York, extending the prohibition on race-based life expectancy tables to also cover ethnicity-based statistics used to calculate future earnings and educational attainment. It solidifies the principle that tort damages must be individualized and cannot be reduced based on group stereotypes, particularly for members of historically disadvantaged groups. This ruling establishes a strong precedent that courts, as state actors, cannot give legal effect to statistical patterns rooted in historical discrimination. It directly challenges the common practice of forensic economists and may influence a nationwide shift towards using race- and ethnicity-neutral data in tort litigation.
Unlock the full brief for G.M.M. v. Kimpson