Opinion ID: 764700
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The proper inquiry under the statute

Text: 50 For all of the reasons set forth above, we hold that the proper inquiry for a district court awarding damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2) should be as follows: 51 (1) The court should first determine the amount of actual damages to the plaintiff plus the profits derived by the violator, if any. See 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(A). 52 (2) The court should next ascertain the number of days that the statute was violated, and multiply by $100. See 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(B). 53 (3) The court should then tentatively award the plaintiff the greater of the above two amounts, unless each is less than $10,000, in which case $10,000 is to be the presumed award. See id. 54 (4) Finally, the court should exercise its discretion to determine whether the plaintiff should receive any damages at all in the case before it. See 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2). 55 In the present case, the employees suffered no actual damages, nor were there any profits derived by Charles Absher from the illegally intercepted communications. The violations arose out of a closely related series of events that took place over a very short period of time, covering no more than eight days (March 21, 1996 until March 28, 1996). Because there were no actual damages and only $800 in per diem damages, and because each of these amounts is less than $10,000, the latter figure is the proper sum to tentatively award each employee. 56 The final step of the analysis, however, is for the district court to exercise its discretion in determining whether the employees should receive any damages at all. Charles Absher points out that he did not profit from the recordings, that the employees in this case suffered no financial harm, and that the violation was for a relatively brief period of time. 57 Although the district court briefly discussed whether § 2520(c)(2)(B) damages are discretionary, it was in a different context. In addressing the claim of the Abshers' co-defendant, Sumner County, the district court held that it did not need to reach the issue of whether the statute contemplates discretion because it found that an award of damages was appropriate based on the facts before it. The district court also examined two cases in which other district courts had declined to impose damages, and apparently concluded that the facts in both cases represented de minimis violations of the statute. It then examined Charles Absher's actions in this case and concluded that it was the type of conduct that the statute seeks to prevent. 58 Although this reasoning is an important part of the analysis under § 2520(c)(2), it is not sufficient to resolve the issue. Each employee's claim needs to be considered individually as the district court exercises its discretion in deciding whether that particular employee is entitled to the $10,000 in statutory damages under § 2520(c)(2)(B). Because this analysis was not carried out under the proper interpretation of the statute as set forth in this opinion, we will remand the issue of damages for further consideration by the district court.