New York, NY – New Yorkers who prevail in employment bias lawsuits often receive far less compensation than what juries initially granted them, due to judges reducing the amounts. State lawmakers are now working on legislation to rectify this issue, as they believe it undermines justice for victims and fails to discourage employers from continuing harmful practices. State Senator Andrew Gournardes is leading the effort to pass a bill that would protect jury verdicts in such cases.
Under the current rule in New York, judges are required to lower verdicts if they deviate significantly from what would be considered reasonable compensation. This practice, known as remittitur, has been criticized for gradually diminishing victim’s awards in a downward spiral. However, the proposed bill aims to limit judges’ ability to lower verdicts to only “exceptional circumstances” where partiality, prejudice, mistake, or corruption influenced the decision.
The introduction of this bill seeks to align New York’s remittitur practice with that in neighboring states like New Jersey. In New Jersey, remittitur is considered a remedy to correct a grossly disproportionate damages award that would otherwise be a miscarriage of justice. Experts argue that in contrast, New York’s remittitur leads to significant reductions in awards, frequently affecting punitive and emotional damages, which are harder to quantify.
Several cases illustrate the impact of remittitur on compensation awards in New York. For instance, plaintiff Moises Mendez won a race and disability lawsuit against Starwood Hotels Resorts Worldwide in 2010 and was initially granted $3 million in damages, only to have a judge reduce it to $10,000. Similarly, Aubrey Chisolm’s racial discrimination lawsuit against Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center resulted in the jury awarding him $1 million in punitive damages. However, a judge later reduced this amount by 95% to $50,000.
Critics argue that the remittitur procedure weakens the protective and progressive nature of the New York State Human Rights Law, as companies are discouraged from paying substantial sums in damages. In many cases, defendants exploit remittitur as leverage to dissuade victims from pursuing their claims or to coerce them into settling outside of court. Lawyers representing employers often use remittitur to downplay the likelihood of high monetary awards.
Proponents of remittitur contend that judges are better equipped than juries to determine appropriate compensation amounts due to their extensive legal training and access to precedent. Scott Green, a partner at Goldberg Segalla, argues that jury verdicts, largely influenced by emotions, can result in excessive awards. By contrast, judges’ legal expertise ensures that verdicts align with established norms.
However, opponents like Julia Elmaleh-Sachs, a senior associate attorney at Crumiller P.C., claim that remittitur undermines the intended impact of the Human Rights Law. Elmaleh-Sachs argues that the limited settlements resulting from remittitur discourage corporations from changing their discriminatory practices and only result in minor financial consequences that they perceive as the cost of doing business.
The legislative push for reform is driven by the desire to send a strong message to corporations and to ensure that victims have a fair chance at justice. Activists argue that large verdicts are necessary to force companies to change their behavior. The prevalence of remittitur perpetuates the perception that employment discrimination cases are of little consequence, thereby discouraging victims from seeking recourse.
While change in the remittitur process will not retroactively affect previous cases, advocates like Röbynn Europe, a former employee of Equinox, underscore the importance of preventing others from enduring a similar experience. Europe won a racial discrimination lawsuit against Equinox, but ultimately settled for an undisclosed amount after the verdict was challenged. She highlights the emotional toll of the negotiation process, which she found equally distressing as the four years of litigation.
Miriam Clark, head of the Legislative Committee at NELA-NY, emphasizes that litigation in cases like Europe’s sends a powerful message to corporations. Clark argues that the only way to effect change is by securing significant verdicts that companies are compelled to pay. Therefore, the continuous reduction of awards through remittitur serves as a deterrent to holding corporations accountable.
As the legislation makes its way through the state Senate, it remains to be seen whether New York will join other states in limiting judicial discretion in reducing compensation awarded by juries. As the debate continues, the plight of victims who face diminished compensation underscores the need for reform to protect their rights and ensure that justice is served.