Joan W. v. City of Chicago
771 F.2d 1020 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When reviewing a jury's compensatory damage award in a Section 1983 action, an appellate court will consider whether the award is out of line with awards in a series of similar cases, and may order a remittitur if the award is flagrantly extravagant and not rationally proportionate to the harm suffered in comparison.
Facts:
- Joan W., a physician, was arrested for a traffic violation in Chicago.
- Pursuant to a City of Chicago policy, female police department employees (matrons) conducted a strip search of Joan W.
- During the search, Joan W. was forced to remove her clothing and expose her vaginal and anal areas.
- The matrons threatened Joan W. when she hesitated, used vulgar language, and laughed at her during the search.
- Joan W. suffered significant emotional distress, including paranoia, depression, and suicidal feelings.
- Evidence indicated that Joan W. had a pre-existing peculiar sensitivity to being disrobed in front of others due to chronic arthritis and personal privacy concerns.
Procedural Posture:
- Joan W. filed a Section 1983 lawsuit against the City of Chicago in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The City of Chicago conceded liability for the unconstitutional strip search.
- A jury trial was held solely on the issue of compensatory damages.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding Joan W. $112,000.
- The City of Chicago filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The City of Chicago, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Joan W. as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury's compensatory damage award of $112,000 for an unconstitutional strip search grossly excessive when compared to awards in similar cases, requiring a new trial or remittitur?
Opinions:
Majority - Swygert, J.
Yes, the compensatory damage award of $112,000 is grossly excessive. An award is excessive if it is 'monstrously excessive,' has 'no rational connection between the evidence on damages and the verdict,' or is 'out of line compared to other awards in similar cases.' In this case, there is a series of at least ten similar strip search cases against the City of Chicago with awards ranging from $3,300 to $60,000. While Joan W.'s search involved aggravating factors like taunting, her emotional trauma was not qualitatively more severe than that suffered by plaintiffs in other cases, some of whom were touched or viewed by male officers. The $112,000 award is 'flagrantly extravagant and out of line' with this established trend. Because the city is immune from punitive damages, the award must strictly serve a compensatory function. However, considering the taunting and Joan W.'s peculiar sensitivities, an award higher than the previous record of $60,000 is justified. Therefore, the award is excessive to the extent it exceeds $75,000.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the importance of 'comparability' in the judicial review of compensatory damage awards, particularly in constitutional tort litigation involving a series of similar factual patterns. By comparing the plaintiff's award to a range of verdicts in factually analogous cases, the court established a check on jury discretion to prevent outlier awards and promote consistency. This approach provides a framework for evaluating the reasonableness of damages for intangible harms like emotional distress, ensuring awards are compensatory rather than punitive in nature. The decision also affirms the high bar for reversible error concerning improper 'Golden Rule' arguments, granting significant deference to the trial judge's assessment of prejudicial impact.
