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

[Subyman]

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?

Illegal dumping? Ripping off customers? Come back down to earth here. I'm talking about this case specifically.

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.

They did terrible stuff, but why not fine them $1B? $4B? I'm not denying the terrible acts of Auto Zone, I'm questioning the logic behind the historic award. And, so is the appeals judge:

Judge Gallo said he will study the evidence and arguments and issue a decision at a later date. He did indicate that he might reduce the punitive damages to about $9 million, or approximately ten times the award Juarez got for lost wages and pain and suffering.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ppeal-of-185M-AutoZone-Verdict-295094251.html

 

[Brainonska511]

Illegal dumping? Ripping off customers? Come back down to earth here. I'm talking about this case specifically.

The point is punitive damages are supposed to hurt the company so they change their behavior and don't repeat it. When fines and damages, such as in other cases, are too low, the behavior doesn't change.

Maybe $185 million is extreme, but it is explained how that number came about in the wiki link - it amounts to about 2 months of operations (plantiff expert economist testified that AZ could pay $100 million in ~4 weeks of operation).

 

[Subyman]

The point is punitive damages are supposed to hurt the company so they change their behavior and don't repeat it. When fines and damages, such as in other cases, are too low, the behavior doesn't change.

Very true. But I question that award. Like I mentioned before, let's really make them change their act with a $1B fine. Or maybe we can really, really change their behavior with a $4B fine. The jury was tasked with finding the appropriate amount to force change within the company. I don't believe Auto Zone needed a historic award to change their behavior.

My original post mentioned that I would be surprised if the judgement stood and it seems like the appeal Judge may significantly reduce to award.

 

[Ketchup]

Illegal dumping? Ripping off customers? Come back down to earth here. I'm talking about this case specifically....

I know you are talking about this case, but this type of case doesn't work the way you think it should. That doesn't make it any less proper. This is one person against an entire company. Due to all the facts in the case, going just about all the way up, there isn't any one person at fault, but there was one person who was wronged. Since the court cannot tell Autozone to split an award amongst all people that have been burned this way (as they are not directly involved in this case), they focused on making Autozone taking note of the problem, through money.

Very similar to the McDonald's hot-coffee incident of '94, and McDonald's took note and made the proper adjustments. This current case is what it is taking Autozone to do the same level.

 

[stlc8tr]

My original post mentioned that I would be surprised if the judgement stood and it seems like the appeal Judge may significantly reduce to award.

This was the beginning of the original article.

This week, the auto parts retailer AutoZone dropped its challenge to a verdict ordering it to pay a record-breaking $185 million in damages to a former employee who claimed she was demoted and fired for being pregnant.

Speculation is that the two parties came to a settlement so they are both dropping any further action.

The main reason to make the judgement so big is to force AutoZone to quickly settle for a smaller amount, IMO.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well there's definitely a logical reason for it, which would be that the victim is the person affected by that bad behavior.

I get that, but the victim gets compensation, the punitive damages are not intended to compensate the victim and "make them whole", it's to punish the offender. The two are related, but not the same. The compensation portion is definitely 100% for the parties wronged, but you can make a logical argument that not all the proceeds of the punitive damages should go to the party wronged.

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.

When person A commits a wrong against person B, the offending party can be punished without the victim befitting in any way. I do understand the logic and the argument that the victim should get the punitive damages awarded as well, but you could make an argument either way.

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.

The plaintiffs can get compensated without getting the punitive damages. I don't think it's a logical outcome to have victims have a completely different outcome based on the same wrong, but that's how the process works today.

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 think it's a better outcome because you wouldn't have these kinds of absurd results that end up dragging through the court system on appeal to ultimately get reduced significantly.

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

Agreed, they'd have a much better perspective based on their legal background, I know I'm looking at it strictly based on my personal "what makes sense" perspective.

 

[PokerGuy]

You don't see the parallels?

Nope.

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

The person who actually made the money (ie, the owner) specifically decides who they want to give that money too -- usually their children and other loved ones. There is no logical parallel between someone working to create wealth to leave for their loved ones and a situation where someone is getting compensation for being wronged.

 

[MrPickins]

Nope.



The person who actually made the money (ie, the owner) specifically decides who they want to give that money too -- usually their children and other loved ones. There is no logical parallel between someone working to create wealth to leave for their loved ones and a situation where someone is getting compensation for being wronged.

In both instances, the person receiving the wealth did not create it, and the amount received is vastly different for each individual, due to factors completely out of their control.

In both situations, tit's unfair for the person to receive so much cash. Luckily for both of them life isn't fair.

 

[PokerGuy]

In both instances, the person receiving the wealth did not create it, and the amount received is vastly different for each individual, due to factors completely out of their control.

In both situations, tit's unfair for the person to receive so much cash. Luckily for both of them life isn't fair.

That makes absolutely no sense, the two are not even close to the same. I work hard to make money specifically so I can give it to my loved ones. Hence, I get to decide who "deserves" it and who doesn't. That money has also already been taxed, so "society" has already gotten their cut. Why would I support the tax man taking a second cut of my money when I give it to my loved ones?

 

[Subyman]

I know you are talking about this case, but this type of case doesn't work the way you think it should. That doesn't make it any less proper. This is one person against an entire company. Due to all the facts in the case, going just about all the way up, there isn't any one person at fault, but there was one person who was wronged. Since the court cannot tell Autozone to split an award amongst all people that have been burned this way (as they are not directly involved in this case), they focused on making Autozone taking note of the problem, through money.

Uhm, that is exactly how everyone thinks this case works.

 

[Subyman]

This was the beginning of the original article.



Speculation is that the two parties came to a settlement so they are both dropping any further action.

The main reason to make the judgement so big is to force AutoZone to quickly settle for a smaller amount, IMO.

Seems like a reasonable outcome. :thumbsup:

I'd bet the long appeals process had her council wishing for her to close this case out and for the defense as well.

 

[Ketchup]

Uhm, that is exactly how everyone thinks this case works.

 

[Jeff7]

I'd be curious what they offered as a settlement? Autozone will probably get nailed in a class action after these revelations.

It is amazing to me people think they can get away with this type of behavior.

Why? They did get away with it for a long time, and likely would have for even longer if not for a very small number of people.


From one of the linked articles:

About 60 percent of the pregnancy discrimination charges filed with the EEOC end up with a finding of no reasonable cause and nearly two-thirds of recent sex discrimination cases end up with the same result.

So, 1) Someone has to go to the trouble of reporting it and hope there's no further retaliation, which will weed out a lot of potential problems for the company. 2) 60% of the ones that do get reported end up not being an issue for the company. I wonder how many of the remainder then end up quietly going away with a closed-doors cash settlement. Everyone has their price, and it can be surprisingly low.

 

[PokerGuy]

From one of the linked articles:
So, 1) Someone has to go to the trouble of reporting it and hope there's no further retaliation, which will weed out a lot of potential problems for the company. 2) 60% of the ones that do get reported end up not being an issue for the company. I wonder how many of the remainder then end up quietly going away with a closed-doors cash settlement. Everyone has their price, and it can be surprisingly low.

That's a mighty big leap of logic there. You seem to be assuming that all claims of some sort of discrimination in the workplace are in fact true and valid. We don't know what proportion are actually valid complaints, the percentage of cases that are lost by the plaintiff means absolutely nothing.

 

[jackstar7]

That makes absolutely no sense, the two are not even close to the same. I work hard to make money specifically so I can give it to my loved ones. Hence, I get to decide who "deserves" it and who doesn't.

But in giving it to them you are gifting it... unless you withhold it until you do your family performance reviews to determine who has earned it.

 

[PokerGuy]

But in giving it to them you are gifting it... unless you withhold it until you do your family performance reviews to determine who has earned it.

Which means .... ? Yes, you're giving it to whoever you want, for whatever reason you think they deserve it. It's up to you because it's your money.

 

[jackstar7]

Which means .... ? Yes, you're giving it to whoever you want, for whatever reason you think they deserve it. It's up to you because it's your money.

And so it is with a jury to determine the money that adequately punishes the company and rewards the person bringing the complaint.

They have latitude and the judge can impose his/her view on that. I hope in this case he doesn't impose and the company is made to settle for a substantive amount that they do reflect upon what led them to this outcome. Some "appropriate" amount to award one person would never be enough to cause people to be fired, where common sense might suggest it would. Due to its systemic nature, it is unlikely that they top guys are going to step down, so at least they are punished for being douchebags.

The jury is free, just as you are, to do with this as they please.


Do the crime, expect to pay the fine.

 

[PokerGuy]

And so it is with a jury to determine the money that adequately punishes the company and rewards the person bringing the complaint.

That's the issue though, the jury doesn't really have an option to sufficiently punish the company (ie, a big enough amount to make it hurt so they don't do it again) without giving an absurd amount of money to the the wronged party. Either an unjust or absurd outcome is pretty much guaranteed.

I don't have a problem with the company having to pay a large amount to teach them (and hopefully other companies) a lesson and act as a deterrent for such behavior.

 

[Genx87]

That's the issue though, the jury doesn't really have an option to sufficiently punish the company (ie, a big enough amount to make it hurt so they don't do it again) without giving an absurd amount of money to the the wronged party. Either an unjust or absurd outcome is pretty much guaranteed.

I don't have a problem with the company having to pay a large amount to teach them (and hopefully other companies) a lesson and act as a deterrent for such behavior.

I just dont understand why you care if one wronged person receives such a large amount of money.

 

[jackstar7]

That's the issue though, the jury doesn't really have an option to sufficiently punish the company (ie, a big enough amount to make it hurt so they don't do it again) without giving an absurd amount of money to the the wronged party. Either an unjust or absurd outcome is pretty much guaranteed.

I don't have a problem with the company having to pay a large amount to teach them (and hopefully other companies) a lesson and act as a deterrent for such behavior.

I think you perhaps are undervaluing the costs that a person wronged has to take on to pursue a lawsuit, too. While hopefully not in this case, but in other similar lawsuits, it's not hard to imagine intimidation, threats, etc. How do you quantify that stress financially?

 

[Subyman]

I think you perhaps are undervaluing the costs that a person wronged has to take on to pursue a lawsuit, too. While hopefully not in this case, but in other similar lawsuits, it's not hard to imagine intimidation, threats, etc. How do you quantify that stress financially?

How do you? $185M? $10M per nervous break down? :biggrin:

 

[jackstar7]

How do you? $185M? $10M per nervous break down? :biggrin:

I think if I was imagining someone threatening me and my family (by way of screwing with my job and future ability to take care of myself and my family), I would be inclined to punish that person harshly for those actions.

Heck, they don't have to physically threaten you. They can attack your character and take steps to discredit you as a person, which is also an attack on your kids and their futures (if you have them). The price of justice for that kind of evil should be very high.


Why do you keep asking people to give you numbers anyways? What argument are you even making?

 

[1prophet]

How do you? $185M? $10M per nervous break down? :biggrin:

This is how and why

In the closing argument for punitive damages, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the reprehensibility of the conduct was extremely high because the unlawful acts were committed by the legal department which was responsible for guiding operations around the world.

Counsel suggested that more than a hundred million dollars would be required to ensure that the Board of Directors took a hard look at their legal department and "clean house."

Specifically, counsel suggested that the award should equate to one week of the company’s extra cash for each year of injustice suffered by Plaintiff. Counsel expressed a hope that the verdict would come to be known as the “Juarez Award” which would stand for the proposition that women are an equal part of the workplace, that they have a right to work pregnant, and that retaliation will not be tolerated.

In opposition, AutoZone argued that it had heard the message and no further punitive damages were required.[14] The jury deliberated one day before reaching its punitive damage verdict.[15]

 

[Subyman]

I think if I was imagining someone threatening me and my family (by way of screwing with my job and future ability to take care of myself and my family), I would be inclined to punish that person harshly for those actions.

Heck, they don't have to physically threaten you. They can attack your character and take steps to discredit you as a person, which is also an attack on your kids and their futures (if you have them). The price of justice for that kind of evil should be very high.


Why do you keep asking people to give you numbers anyways? What argument are you even making?

You asked for the numbers... or was that a rhetorical question?

 

[Subyman]

This is how and why

I've read that, I was asking him specifically.