Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.
2000 Daily Journal DAR 4419, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3244, 212 F.3d 493 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a jury returns a general verdict awarding damages on both a federal Title VII claim and a parallel state law claim, the district court has discretion to allocate the compensatory damages to the state law claim and punitive damages to the federal claim to avoid applying Title VII's statutory cap to the compensatory award.
Facts:
- Jennifer Passantino began working for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. (CPI) in 1979 and rose to become a successful manager in the company's male-dominated 'military' division.
- In 1993, Passantino's supervisor, Lew Williams, exhibited sexist behavior, referring to women buyers with derogatory terms and telling Passantino he did not believe the company was committed to promoting women.
- After Passantino and another female manager, Jackie Upshaw, complained to Williams in 1993, the offensive behavior from male coworkers increased and Williams gave Passantino a low rating for 'relationship with peers.'
- In 1994, several desirable management positions were filled by male employees, including two men Passantino had complained about, without the jobs being openly posted.
- In November 1994, Passantino made a formal internal EEO complaint to the Human Resources department, despite being warned of 'many ramifications.'
- Following her formal complaint and subsequent EEOC filing, Passantino's job responsibilities were reduced, key accounts were transferred away from her, and she was excluded from division managers' meetings.
- CPI executives then repeatedly offered Passantino positions that were demotions or high-risk lateral moves, while misrepresenting them as promotions and falsely telling her that other, more desirable positions were not promotions.
- As a result of these events, Passantino suffered from anxiety, stomach problems, rashes, and headaches, and her once-promising career advancement within the company came to a complete halt.
Procedural Posture:
- Jennifer Passantino sued Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc. (CPI) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, asserting claims for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
- The district court denied CPI's motion to transfer venue to New Jersey.
- Following a trial, a jury found for CPI on the discrimination claim but found for Passantino on her federal and state retaliation claims.
- The jury awarded Passantino $100,000 in back pay, $2,000,000 in front pay, $1,000,000 in compensatory emotional distress damages, and $8,600,000 in punitive damages.
- On CPI's post-trial motion, the district court allocated the compensatory damages, front pay, and back pay to the state law claim, while allocating the punitive damages to the Title VII claim.
- The court then reduced the punitive damage award from $8.6 million to the $300,000 statutory cap under Title VII.
- The district court denied CPI's subsequent motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial.
- CPI, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Passantino, as appellee, cross-appealed on the damages cap issue.
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 a district court err by allocating a jury's general award of compensatory damages to a plaintiff's state law claim while allocating punitive damages to her parallel Title VII claim, in order to avoid the application of Title VII's statutory damages cap to the compensatory award?
Opinions:
Majority - Reinhardt
No, a district court does not err by allocating a general compensatory damages award to the plaintiff's state law claim while allocating punitive damages to her Title VII claim. When a jury finds for a plaintiff on both federal and state claims based on the same conduct, the damages are fungible, and the court has discretion to allocate them in a way that preserves the jury's lawful award and respects state law remedies, which are explicitly protected by Title VII. The jury found for Passantino on both her state and federal retaliation claims without specifying an allocation. Because the legal standards were identical, the damage awards were effectively interchangeable. Allocating all damages to the Title VII claim would improperly nullify the jury's state law finding and subject the entire award to the federal cap, which would violate Title VII's provision (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7) preserving state remedies. This court's precedent in Pavon v. Swift Transportation Co. supports upholding such an allocation, and it is consistent with the district court's general duty to preserve lawful jury awards whenever possible.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Thomas
I concur with the majority on all issues except for the remand on punitive damages. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the punitive damage award even under the standard set by Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n. Therefore, a remand is unnecessary and the district court's judgment should be affirmed in its entirety.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a crucial legal strategy for employment discrimination plaintiffs in jurisdictions with robust state anti-discrimination laws. By affirming the district court's ability to allocate damages between state and federal claims, the Ninth Circuit allows plaintiffs to maximize their recovery by sidestepping Title VII's restrictive statutory caps. This reinforces the principle that Title VII establishes a floor, not a ceiling, for discrimination remedies, ensuring federal law does not weaken more protective state statutes. The ruling provides clear guidance for structuring damage awards in cases with overlapping state and federal claims, significantly impacting settlement negotiations and litigation outcomes in favor of plaintiffs.
