San Diego jury awards woman $186 million in bias case against AutoZone

[cali]

A federal jury in California awarded nearly $186 million to a San Diego area woman who sued AutoZone Inc. saying she was demoted and fired after being told pregnant women can't do the job of managing a store, court records showed.

The award on Monday by a six-person jury, which follows a two-week trial, includes $872,720 in compensatory damages and another $185 million in punitive damages for plaintiff Rosario Juarez, 43.

"We were able to prove that AutoZone engaged in rather extraordinary discrimination against Ms. Juarez," said attorney Charles Moore, who is part of the legal team representing her.

Representatives for the auto parts retailer did not immediately respond to requests for comment by phone and email. But company spokesman Ray Pohlman told the San Diego Union Tribune that the company intends to appeal.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/san-diego-jury-awards-woman-186-million-bias-013421925--finance.html

[Agschmid]

1. Kick.

[on point]

2. To deter corporate bad acts the penalties have to hurt. Hurray

[47of74]

3. Will the judge reduce the award?

Seems like they do that a lot.

[jamzrockz]

8. The only thing it will deter

is companies like this not ever hiring women who are at child bearing age. This amount is just silly. Do you want to push them or drive them out of business?

[Orrex]

12. Too large to charge?

That's a great idea--corporations should be protected from appropriately huge settlements against them!

It's about time the legal system was put to work for the wealthy and powerful. Why didn't we try this before?

[jamzrockz]

14. Are you seriously

trying to tell me $182 is a fair amount for the crime? also do you think the justice system should make scapegoats out of individuals to deter others from committing the same crime?

Sorry, but 2 wrongs doesn't make a right. The massive amount will only send the wrong signals to companies.

[bettyellen]

20. scapepgoats? you seem to forget they were potentially discriminating against every woman under 50

that worked for them. That shit is very serious. Money talks.

[Wella]

27. It was testimony like this that did them in:

http://news.yahoo.com/san-diego-jury-awards-woman-186-million-bias-013421925--finance.html

At trial, a former district manager testified that an AutoZone vice president berated him for having so many women in management positions, saying: "What are we running here, a boutique? Get rid of those women."

In other words, there was a pattern of gender discrimination that goes back to the corporate headquarters. The jury wanted to send a message to the corporation about its general attitude towards women working at their stores, hence the large award. The company will appeal and probably get it reduced, but the company still needs to be on notice.

[AngryAmish]

4. 62 mil for 2 weeks work

Nice.

[cali]

5. no. that's not what it's for.

[AngryAmish]

6. I am talking about the lawyer.

When you become a lawyer you learn to divide by three pretty quick.

[leeroysphitz]

7. learn to math n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

18. Derp! nt

[davidn3600]

9. You'll see less young women managing AutoZone stores now

[cali]

10. why? how would you know? how many women now manage AZ stores?

Do you think there should be no redress for discrimination?

[davidn3600]

11. Because I know how executives think. I've seen how the corporate world reacts.

Their solution will be to just avoid the entire thing next time.

Why do you think HR departments dont like hiring women of child-bearing age to management positions? That's been an issue for decades. And there are issues involved that go beyond corporate attitudes. When a pregnant woman in a management position takes time off, the company has to train someone to take the spot. What happens when the woman comes back is that new person may have grown into that job, so that causes psychological tension when they get demoted. It can also cause tension with the workforce who may like the new person better. Corporate may also like the new person better if their productivity and numbers are better which then can lead to bias against the woman coming back.

This is not new. This has been an issue for a long time.

[Orrex]

13. You've actually made several compelling arguments in favor of that practice.

Was that your intent?

[davidn3600]

15. My intent was to explain thinking from the way corporate executives and HR traditionally think

That is how THEY view the situation.

[Orrex]

19. I know--those are the exact arguments that they would make.

I don't endorse them, but I would be interested to hear how you refute them.

If, as you note, the employment of a pregnant woman does indeed represent real financial risk and the possibility of future personnel conflict, what would be your argument to dissuade corporations from the practice of selective hiring?

[bettyellen]

22. don't hold your breath asking them to refute discrimination against women.

ain't going to happen.

[laundry_queen]

21. That's why it should be against the law for them to do that

And why court wins like this are important. It's a deterrent for companies to discriminate.

[malaise]

31. So tolerate discrimination or we will fire all of you

Last edited Sun Nov 23, 2014, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Nice choice - NOT

[B Calm]

33. Every AZ store has several assistant managers. They are also required from time to time to fill

in at different stores.

[B Calm]

32. I drove a semi for AZ for ten years and made deliveries to stores. Here in the midwest

I know of only 4 women who were store managers out of thousands of stores. There might be more now, I haven't worked there since 2003.

Store workers (including managers) made low wages. They were amazed when I told them how much I was making. I even helped a few of them to get their CDL.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. $185 million in punitive damages is ridiculous.

[davidn3600]

17. No way she'll get anything close to that

The Supreme Court has basically put limits on cases like that. Usually punitive damages can't exceed 9 to 1 of the actual damages awarded. Which means the total award would be around $7 million. But AutoZone already said they are going to appeal.

There is also a bit of an issue of a juror caught hugging the plaintiff in the courtroom.

[bettyellen]

23. I bet a few people here find it infuriating, LOL.

They hate anyone proving that discrimination against women still occurs. Apparently it ended overnight years ago, ha ha.

[Wella]

26. Part of that is because of this testimony:

http://news.yahoo.com/san-diego-jury-awards-woman-186-million-bias-013421925--finance.html
At trial, a former district manager testified that an AutoZone vice president berated him for having so many women in management positions, saying: "What are we running here, a boutique? Get rid of those women."

In other words, it's not just about one woman but about the corporate headquarters' propensity for gender discrimination across the board. It sounds like the woman's pregnancy was an excuse for this particular store to get rid of a female worker. It sounds like the jury wanted to send a message to the corporate headquarters.

[Rex]

24. Of course they intend to appeal, that is $185 million dollars.

It's not like a group of investment bankers who can lose 24 billion dollars and still rake in a record profit. I bet autozone is shitting their collective pants right about now.

[Jenoch]

25. The woman woukd have been better off if the

jury had not awarded her such a ridiculous amount.

[Wella]

28. How so?

?

[Jenoch]

29. The judge can choose to reduce the punitive damages to zero.

[Wella]

30. The issue is larger than this one woman; apparently there was a company-wide attitude towards women

http://news.yahoo.com/san-diego-jury-awards-woman-186-million-bias-013421925--finance.html

At trial, a former district manager testified that an AutoZone vice president berated him for having so many women in management positions, saying: "What are we running here, a boutique? Get rid of those women."

I have a feeling that this is where the punitive damages come from. It's not about justice for the worker but a message to the corporation. The judge will need to take that into consideration. No doubt, the amount will be reduced, but Auto Zone is a big corporation and it takes big money to make them sit up and take notice.

As for the woman, I don't know how much she'll end up with after the lawyers take their share.