Autozone to pay $185Million For Telling Pregnant Woman She Can’t Do Her Job Anymore

[Genx87]

This isn't to talk shit, but are you a lawyer? (serious question)

My first thought would be that while the legislature has a good bit of latitude about how the courts conduct their business that banning punitive damages is very different than appropriating them for the state. When you ban them from being awarded you are just limiting what the courts can consider. When you're assigning punitive damages to the state you're taking property, which is pretty different. If that were the case could they direct compensatory damages to themselves as well? If not, why?

I cant imagine a law that would require punitive damages be paid to the state in a civil case be legal. The state can steal our wealth in many legal ways. But to take a % of a lawsuit settlement sounds highly unlikely.

 

[Ketchup]

At first, I too thought that was insane. After I read that it was systemic all the way up the corp chain; the lawsuit should have changed into class action & gone for way more than $185 million.

Came in to post the same thing. This is how you give a company a message, $$$. It is utterly amazing how far up this thing went. The more I have read about this, the more it reminds me of some John Grisham books I have read. While the absurd amount is off, I hope they agreed on an amount that will get a message across.

 

[MrPickins]

That's something I've thought about as well, I'm not sure there's a great answer. For megacorps, for a fine to be effective as a deterrent, the amount needs to be very big... but it doesn't seem logical to have someone win the jackpot because they got mistreated by a big company, while someone else suffering the same treatment from a smaller one gets less.

My (completely arbitrary) system would be that the victim gets compensatory damages. Then, if the jury decides on punitive damages, the victim should get a set multiple of the compensatory damages out of that pot, the lawyers would get their contingency fee out of that pot, and the rest would go to a charity (or set of charities) specified by the victim.

So, if she was wronged to the tune of $800k, she should get that, plus lets say 2 x $800k in punitive (so that makes $2.4 mil total), the lawyers get their payment, and the rest goes to a charity of her choice. That it acts as a deterrent for the company, but doesn't result in absurd awards that are wildly different for the same wrong depending on the size of the company that committed it.

Imagine for a second if Apple is ever found guilty of something and there are severe punitive damages. The punitive damages would have to be in the billions for apple to even notice.

By the same logic, you're in favor of a high estate tax, right? :hmm:

 

[Ns1]

185 million seems a bit extreme. One million sounds more fair

this

 

[Ns1]

Why?

How could you possibly come up with an argument as to why she deserves 185mil? That's like 3700x a 50k annual salary.

 

[fskimospy]

How could you possibly come up with an argument as to why she deserves 185mil? That's like 3700x a 50k annual salary.

What's your argument for the idea that a random charity that Autozone never wronged should get almost $200 million of its money while the actual victims of Autozone get about 0.5% as much?

 

[Zorba]

Same here. Seeing such bad behavior from one idiot or even group of idiots at a particular store is one thing, but you would think those higher up in the organization know better, especially those involved in audits, hr and other similar functions.

Am I the only one that thinks the punishment shouldn't just be for the company in terms of punitive damages -- shouldn't those people involved personally also be punished? According to the story some people pressured an investigator to lie about her investigation into the story. Shouldn't there be charges against them?

If nothing else the shareholders and company should be able to sue these morons personally for damages to the value of the company. Really it is time for some white collar criminals to go to jail, maybe not in this case but in plenty of others.

 

[Zorba]

I cant imagine a law that would require punitive damages be paid to the state in a civil case be legal. The state can steal our wealth in many legal ways. But to take a % of a lawsuit settlement sounds highly unlikely.

Since they are violating civil laws, couldn't the state be a party to the suit? Since punitive damages are to punish the company for violating the laws, why shouldn't the state get them? If the state hadn't passed these laws, the plaintiff would have no case. The plaintiff should get some kind of finder's fee, but why should this lady hit the jackpot just because a huge company screwed up and she was the first to trail? While worse happens at a smaller company and that person gets relatively nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

Since they are violating civil laws, couldn't the state be a party to the suit? Since punitive damages are to punish the company for violating the laws, why shouldn't the state get them? If the state hadn't passed these laws, the plaintiff would have no case. The plaintiff should get some kind of finder's fee, but why should this lady hit the jackpot just because a huge company screwed up and she was the first to trail? While worse happens at a smaller company and that person gets relatively nothing.

The state CAN sue people in civil court, but in this case they weren't a party to the suit. The state is not somehow a party to every lawsuit ever filed by virtue of laws existing.

 

[Murloc]

What's your argument for the idea that a random charity that Autozone never wronged should get almost $200 million of its money while the actual victims of Autozone get about 0.5% as much?

because the victim of a smaller company would not get these high punitive damages, since the small company needs to get a smaller fine to get punished in the same way as autozone gets punished with a 185 million dollars fine.

The size of the punitive damages must depend on the size of the company.
Otherwise big corps would never get punished while small businesses would go bankrupt over any small error.

The financial and moral damage the woman suffered does NOT depend on the size of the company, so it's NOT right that she gets a lot of money while other women in the same situation but working for small businesses don't get all these millions in extra punitive damages.

If autozone was a small company and the 800k$ compensation for damages was deemed to be punitive enough compared to their income, 100% of that money should obviously go to the woman.

 

[Jimzz]

because the victim of a smaller company would not get these high punitive damages, since the small company needs to get a smaller fine to get punished in the same way as autozone gets punished with a 185 million dollars fine.

The size of the punitive damages must depend on the size of the company.
Otherwise big corps would never get punished while small businesses would go bankrupt over any small error.

The financial and moral damage the woman suffered does NOT depend on the size of the company, so it's NOT right that she gets a lot of money while other women in the same situation but working for small businesses don't get all these millions in extra punitive damages.

If autozone was a small company and the 800k$ compensation for damages was deemed to be punitive enough compared to their income, 100% of that money should obviously go to the woman.

I disagree. If this was a smaller company they would not have layers like regional manager, lose prevention, internal legal, etc... As such a lawsuit would go much faster and also cost less for someone to do. That is why most of these lose as people run out of money or can't find someone to take the case as the company is to large and has the ability to cover its tracks. For AZ they really f--ked up as they did the same thing to one of its protection layers. If not for that this case may have never been heard let alone gone the way it did.

 

[PokerGuy]

By the same logic, you're in favor of a high estate tax, right? :hmm:

Uh no. Why would I be?

 

[fskimospy]

because the victim of a smaller company would not get these high punitive damages, since the small company needs to get a smaller fine to get punished in the same way as autozone gets punished with a 185 million dollars fine.

The size of the punitive damages must depend on the size of the company.
Otherwise big corps would never get punished while small businesses would go bankrupt over any small error.

The financial and moral damage the woman suffered does NOT depend on the size of the company, so it's NOT right that she gets a lot of money while other women in the same situation but working for small businesses don't get all these millions in extra punitive damages.

If autozone was a small company and the 800k$ compensation for damages was deemed to be punitive enough compared to their income, 100% of that money should obviously go to the woman.

Right, but that's the difference between compensatory an punitive damages. Compensatory damages are related to the woman's injury and punitive are related to Autozone's conduct and size.

That doesn't answer why if you think this woman is undeserving of the punitive damages assessed to Autozone due to their behavior towards her that a charity which Autozone has never wronged would be. Wouldn't that be an even more unjust enrichment?

Why is autozone being forced to pay a charity a judgment when it has never committed a civil violation against them? Is it purely to keep punitive damages away from the plaintiff? If so, why is that a desirable outcome?

Also, as I've said before, this sounds like it may be illegal/unconstitutional.

 

[Genx87]

How could you possibly come up with an argument as to why she deserves 185mil? That's like 3700x a 50k annual salary.

The punitive damages are to send a msg this isnt acceptable behavior in the work place. It isnt about why she deserves 185 million. It is about why Auto Zone deserved to get punished for their managements behavior.

 

[Genx87]

Since they are violating civil laws, couldn't the state be a party to the suit? Since punitive damages are to punish the company for violating the laws, why shouldn't the state get them? If the state hadn't passed these laws, the plaintiff would have no case. The plaintiff should get some kind of finder's fee, but why should this lady hit the jackpot just because a huge company screwed up and she was the first to trail? While worse happens at a smaller company and that person gets relatively nothing.

No, the state cant be party to every civil case by virture of passing civil laws.

Is your problem she hit the jackpot? Why do you care?

 

[Brainonska511]

The punitive damages are to send a msg this isnt acceptable behavior in the work place. It isnt about why she deserves 185 million. It is about why Auto Zone deserved to get punished for their managements behavior.

Exactly. The large punitive damages was to get AZ's attention so that they might actually fix their internal problems instead of sweeping the issue under the rug.

And on to top of it all, the state and federal government will get a hefty chunk of the payout anyway, thanks to income tax laws

 

[PokerGuy]

What's your argument for the idea that a random charity that Autozone never wronged should get almost $200 million of its money while the actual victims of Autozone get about 0.5% as much?

I don't think you can rationally make such an argument since the charity is not party to the suit and wasn't involved. Punitive damages are supposed to punish the offender, not compensate the victim for losses. If the award has to be large in order to materially affect the offender (to act as a deterrent), there's no logical reason that the victim should automatically receive the money associated with that punishment, but it does make sense for the victim to have some say in how the punishment should occur (as in, they can direct where the funds go).

I dunno, it's messy, but I just don't think it makes sense that if company A does xyz to you, you get $10k, if company B does the exact same xyz to you, you collect $100 million because company B is larger.

In this particular case, I don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement with the company having done wrong, that they should be punished and that the victim needs to be compensated. I'd guess most will find $185 million awarded to the victim absurd though.

 

[Murloc]

That doesn't answer why if you think this woman is undeserving of the punitive damages assessed to Autozone due to their behavior towards her that a charity which Autozone has never wronged would be. Wouldn't that be an even more unjust enrichment?

Why is autozone being forced to pay a charity a judgment when it has never committed a civil violation against them? Is it purely to keep punitive damages away from the plaintiff? If so, why is that a desirable outcome?

Also, as I've said before, this sounds like it may be illegal/unconstitutional.

I'm no lawyer, and let's drop the charity idea and suppose the punitive money simply goes to the state: it's like a fine for security or immigration violations on the workplace then. I believe these are constitutional in the US as well.

Keeping the punitive damages away from the plaintiff is a desiderable outcome simply because there is no reason she should get that money. It doesn't matter who she works for, it matters that her rights were violated and she gets proper compensation.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think you can rationally make such an argument since the charity is not party to the suit and wasn't involved. Punitive damages are supposed to punish the offender, not compensate the victim for losses. If the award has to be large in order to materially affect the offender (to act as a deterrent), there's no logical reason that the victim should automatically receive the money associated with that punishment, but it does make sense for the victim to have some say in how the punishment should occur (as in, they can direct where the funds go).

Well there's definitely a logical reason for it, which would be that the victim is the person affected by that bad behavior. There could be an argument that society would benefit more from giving it to a charity than from giving it to a private individual, but the argument for why the individual should get it is pretty logical and straightforward. ie: if we're punishing you for injuring person A, person A will be the primary beneficiary of whatever punishment we inflict.

I dunno, it's messy, but I just don't think it makes sense that if company A does xyz to you, you get $10k, if company B does the exact same xyz to you, you collect $100 million because company B is larger.

I get how that's a strange outcome, but I remain unconvinced it's a problematic one. Why does it matter if this woman gets more money than someone else might get? The purpose of the system here isn't to make sure all plaintiffs are compensated equally, it's to redress injuries and deter future behavior.

In this particular case, I don't think you'll find a lot of disagreement with the company having done wrong, that they should be punished and that the victim needs to be compensated. I'd guess most will find $185 million awarded to the victim absurd though.

I get the absurdity, but I'm not sure there's a better outcome. When Autozone injures someone and has to pay a judgment, it seems odd to deliberately take that judgment away from people Autozone has injured and give it to people they haven't. Why is that a better outcome?

I really wish wolfe or DVC would weigh in on this, because as I've said it might also be illegal to do that.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm no lawyer, and let's drop the charity idea and suppose the punitive money simply goes to the state: it's like a fine for security or immigration violations on the workplace then. I believe these are constitutional in the US as well.

The US can absolutely fine Autozone and/or take them to court over violations of civil law. In this case, they didn't. The state doesn't have a right to civil judgments rendered to you or anyone else if they are not a party to the case.

Also, as I asked before, if the state has a right to punitive damages awarded to you does that mean they could pass a law that confiscated your compensatory damages as well? Not saying they would, but do you think that would be constitutional? If not, why is it different?

I just don't see how the state taking punitive damages awarded to you would be legal. They have the ability to outlaw the awarding of punitive damages I believe (or at least cap them), but I'm not aware of any authority they would have to confiscate them.

Keeping the punitive damages away from the plaintiff is a desiderable outcome simply because there is no reason she should get that money. It doesn't matter who she works for, it matters that her rights were violated and she gets proper compensation.

Why is there more of a reason that the state should get it? Why is forcing Autozone to pay damages to someone/something they didn't injure better than forcing them to pay damages to someone they did injure?

How does that make any sense?

 

[MrPickins]

Uh no. Why would I be?

You don't see the parallels?

but it doesn't seem logical to have someone win the jackpot because they [were born into a rich household], while someone else [with poor parents] gets less.

Hell, I'd say she deserves the money more than some snotty brat who has never known work or discomfort.

 

[Ketchup]

I am glad to see other posters agreeing with this. I personally I happy for the lady who gets the fruits of teaching Autozone a lesson the best way the legal system allows

I am sure the 60% of pregnant women who filed and lost cases like this are ticked though.

 

[Subyman]

Award seems inappropriate IMO. I'd be surprised if they actually pay her that. I haven't taken a deep dive on this story, but appeals will probably see that amount cut significantly.

 

[Brainonska511]

Award seems inappropriate IMO. I'd be surprised if they actually pay her that. I haven't taken a deep dive on this story, but appeals will probably see that amount cut significantly.

How is it inappropriate? The punitive damages are to get AZ's attention to look at their systemic discrimination problem. If the fine was small, they could safely ignore it and avoid implementing any real change.

I mean, look at other fines levied at large companies by the government. Some of them are hilariously small. Do you think a large company really changes its behavior dramatically when it faces a piddly tens of thousands of dollar fine for illegal dumping or ripping off customers for millions of dollars?

 

[MrPickins]

Award seems inappropriate IMO. I'd be surprised if they actually pay her that. I haven't taken a deep dive on this story, but appeals will probably see that amount cut significantly.

You should:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juarez_v._AutoZone_Stores,_Inc.

AutoZone did some pretty despicable stuff, and it went way up the ladder and also into the legal department.

There is no doubt that this is part of the culture of the company. They deserved to be hit hard.