News & Insights

Recent Posts

WSHB Elevates Ten Partners to Defined Equity Status

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Elected Into Partnership

Eighteen Attorneys Elected to WSHB Senior Counsel

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

WSHB Client Alert: Meser v. Bound Brook Board of Education

WSHB Case Update: Cuevas v. Wentworth Group

October 12, 2016

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in an unpublished opinion, upheld a $2.5 million award to two brothers, including a combined $1.4 million in emotional distress damages, in an alleged race-based Law Against Discrimination (LAD) case. The holding is significant, as it confirms New Jersey’s long-standing rule that courts must exercise remittitur, the power to reduce a jury’s award, with great restraint, and that a jury’s award is given deference, particularly because the jurors were attentive throughout trial, understood their charge, and carefully apportioned damages. Further, the decision rejected two methods previously used by the trial courts in deciding remittitur motions: the comparative analysis method, and the “feel for the case” standard, affirmed in He v. Miller, 207 N.J. 230 (2011). In rejecting He, the Supreme Court recognized that due to the “special harm” caused by willful discrimination in the workplace, Plaintiffs were entitled to recover emotional distress and mental anguish damages resulting from the discrimination. Employers should certainly take notice of this holding, which affords significant deference to the jury’s damage award.

In the underlying matter, Plaintiffs alleged violations of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination , a hostile work environment, retaliatory firings, and a failure to promote, all based upon plaintiffs Hispanic heritage. In its defense, the employer contended that plaintiffs were terminated for poor work performance. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict against defendants on all claims other than Plaintiff Ramon’s failure-to-promote claim. The trial court rejected defendant’s post-trial remittitur motions to vacate the jury’s verdict and the damages award. In particular, the court denied defendant’s motion for a remittitur of the emotional distress damages. In the trial court’s view, the award fell far short of one that would be shocking to the conscience, and the award could not be considered a miscarriage of justice. The state’s highest court also held that it is inappropriate for a trial judge to apply her own “feel for the case” under He v. Miller, 207 N.J. 230 (2011), and further that the comparison of similar verdicts is a futile exercise that should be abandoned on a remittitur motion. Instead, a remittitur motion must be based solely upon the record below. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2020 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required