Boston, MA — A notable civil rights case recently culminated in a U.S. District Court decision that a jury’s sizable award of $150,000 in “nominal” damages was inappropriate, leading the judge to reduce the amount to just one dollar. This verdict has sparked a detailed examination of what constitutes nominal damages within the legal framework.
The controversy began with Diane Lawless’s lawsuit against the town of Freetown. Lawless, previously appointed as the town’s treasurer in June 2013, alleged wrongful termination and violations of her procedural due process rights under §1983 after her dismissal in June 2015.
Following a nine-day trial in June, presided over by Judge Indira Talwani, the jury found that Freetown had indeed breached Lawless’s employment agreement but awarded zero compensatory damages. Instead, the jury designated $150,000 as nominal damages for the breach of her civil rights. The size of the award immediately raised legal eyebrows, prompting the town’s defense to request its reduction.
Boston attorney Joseph A. Padolsky, representing Freetown, emphasized the unprecedented nature of the award, noting that it grossly exceeded typical amounts for nominal damages, which often reach no more than $500. “The $150,000 award was clearly erroneous,” Padolsky asserted, supporting Talwani’s decision to reject a trial on new damages or a revision of the award.
On the opposing side, Lawless’s attorney, Chip Muller of Barrington, Rhode Island, insisted that jury confusion led to the unconventional figure. Muller hinted that the decision might not reflect a clear understanding of the judicial instructions provided, leaving open the possibility of an appeal.
The case reflects an ongoing debate over the jury’s role and judicial oversight in damage awards. Experts have pointed out that while juries have leeway in award determinations, their deviations from legal standards must be checked by the judiciary. Amy Mariani, a Boston mediator and former litigator, argued that the jury’s decision might have been an attempt to send a message against the town’s misconduct, though it strayed from conventional legal definitions. “‘Nominal’ to [the jury] may have been $150,000, but that’s not what nominal means under the law,” Mariani commented.
In her ruling, Judge Talwani cited the 1978 Supreme Court decision Carey v. Piphus, which clarifies that nominal damages can be awarded even without proof of actual injury, to substantiate reducing the award to one dollar. This reflects a protection of procedural due process, ensuring the separation of symbolic acknowledgment of rights violations from compensatory damage awards that require clear evidence.
This decision underscores the complex interplay between jury discretion and judicial responsibility. While the jury aimed to validate Lawless’s grievances through their award, the legal system’s boundaries required this symbolic gesture to align with established norms, demonstrating the checks and balances inherent in judicial proceedings. The case serves as a reminder of the unpredictable nature of jury decisions and the meticulous scrutiny required in judicial review processes to uphold constitutional protections and procedural fairness.