Document: 527 U.S. 526119 S.Ct. 2118144 L.Ed.2d 494 139 F.3d 958, vacated and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 208 CAROLE KOLSTAD, PETITIONERv.AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALSFOR DISTRICT COLUMBIA CIRCUIT [June 22, 1999] Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Under terms Civil Rights Act 1991 (1991 Act), 105 Stat. 1071, punitive damages are available in claims under Title VII 1964 (Title VII), 78 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1994 ed. Supp. III), Americans with Disabilities 1990 (ADA), 104 328, 12101 Punitive limited, however, to cases which employer has engaged intentional discrimination done so "with malice or reckless indifference federally protected rights an aggrieved individual." Rev. §1977, 1981a(b)(1). We here consider circumstances may be awarded action VII. 2 * A 3 In September 1992, Jack O'Donnell announced that he would retiring Director Legislation Legislative Policy Council on Government Affairs Federal Dental Services for respondent, American Association (respondent Association). Petitioner, Carole Kolstad, was employed respondent's Washington, D. C., office, where she serving Agency Relations. When learned O'Donnell's retirement, expressed interest filling his position. Also interested replacing Tom Spangler, another employee Washington office. At this time, Spangler Association's Counsel, a position involved him legislative lobbying efforts. Both petitioner had worked directly O'Donnell, both received "distinguished" performance ratings by acting head Leonard Wheat. 4 formally applied position, Wheat requested Dr. William Allen, then Executive Chicago make ultimate promotion decision. After interviewing recommended Allen select post. notified December 1992 had, fact, selected serve replacement. Petitioner's challenge employment decision forms basis instant action. B 5 first exhausting her avenues relief before Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed suit against District Court, alleging promote act proscribed petitioner's view, entire selection process sham. Tr. 8 (Oct. 26, 1995) (closing argument plaintiff's counsel). Counsel urged jury conclude Allen's stated reasons selecting were pretext gender discrimination, id., at 19, 24, been chosen formal began, 19. Among evidence offered support there testimony effect modified description post track aspects job used hire Spangler. See 132 136 (testimony Cindy Simms); 48 51 20, Wheat). "preselection" procedure suggested intent discriminate sex. Id., 24. Petitioner also introduced trial told sexually offensive jokes referred certain prominent professional women derogatory terms. 120 124 18, Kolstad). Moreover, allegedly refused meet several weeks regarding 112 113. testified, historically experienced difficulty gaining access 114 115. part, testified conducted informal meetings see 148 23, 1995), although did not discuss her, 127 128 1995). 6 The Court denied request instruction damages. concluded respondent discriminated sex backpay totaling $52,718. App. 109 110. Although subsequently motion judgment matter law issue liability, court made clear it persuaded over sex, requests reinstatement attorney's fees. 912 F. 13, 15 (DC 1996). 7 appealed from Court's decisions denying Respondent cross-appealed denial its law. split decision, panel Appeals Columbia Circuit reversed 108 1431, 1435 (1997). doing, rejected claim only " 'extraordinarily egregious cases.' 1437. reasoned that, "because 'the state mind necessary trigger liability wrong is least culpable required applicable,' 1438 (quoting Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F.2d 194, 205 (CA1 1987)), fact could reasonably have found meant should permitted noted, all involving award. F.3d, 1438. Such award might improper, reasoned, instances justifiably believes engages outside scope employee's authority. 1439. Here, concluded, "neither attempted justify use nor disavowed actions agents." agreed rehear case en banc, limited question. divided opinion, affirmed 958 (1998). banc majority "before question can go jury, defendant's culpability must exceed what needed show discrimination." 961. Based Act's structure history, determined, specifically, defendant shown some "egregious" misconduct 965. declined set out "egregiousness" requirement any detail, failed requisite showing case. Judge Randolph concurred, relying chiefly §1981a's congressional "limi[t] exceptional cases." 970. Tatel wrote dissent five judges, who generally majority. 9 granted certiorari, 525 ___ (1998), resolve conflict among Courts concerning §1981a(b)(1). Compare (CADC 1998) (case below), Luciano Olsten Corp., 110 210, 219 220 (CA2 1997) (rejecting contention require "extraordinarily egregious" conduct). II 10 Prior 1991, equitable relief, primarily backpay, prevailing plaintiffs; statute provided no authority compensatory Landgraf USI Film Products, 511 244, 252 253 (1994). With passage Act, Congress additional remedies, including damages, classes ADA violations. 11 limits awards, "intentional discrimination" is, do rely "disparate impact" theory discrimination. 1981a(a)(1). Section 1981a(b)(1) further qualifies availability awards: 12 "A complaining party recover section (other than government, government agency political subdivision) if demonstrates discriminatory practice practices (Emphasis added.) 13 very §1981a suggests authorize awards subset 1981a(a)(1) while §1981a(b)(1) requires plaintiffs "demonstrat[ion]" their eligibility plainly sought impose two standards one establishing right another, higher standard plaintiff satisfy qualify 14 give life two-tiered limiting nature. credit majority's effort effectuate intent, but, end, we reject conclusion described employer's misconduct. "malice" "reckless" ultimately focus actor's mind. See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary 956 957, 1270 (6th 1990); W. Keeton, Dobbs, R. & Owen, Prosser Torts 212 214 (5th 1984) (defining "willful," "wanton," "reckless"). While mental state, infra, 11; supra, 213 214, does limit form evidence, outrageous independent Nor statute's imply role face silence. On contrary, view provides based solely consistent distinction between relief. Intent determines remedies open well; §1981a(a)(1) (emphasis added). gives Congress' apparent narrow class those "malice [the plaintiff's] rights." "reckless indifference" pertain knowledge violation federal law, awareness engaging 16 gain understanding meaning indifference," §1981a, Smith Wade, 461 30 (1983). parties, well dissent, recognize looked adopting language §1981a. Oral Arg. 28 29; Brief 24; 964 965; 971 (Tatel, J., dissenting). Employing similar later appeared "a assess §1983 when conduct motivated evil motive involves callous others." U.S., 56. determined unnecessary actual award, 45 48, standard, minimum, recklessness subjec- tive form. "subjective consciousness" risk injury illegality 'criminal civil obligations.' 37, n. 6, 41 Philadelphia, B. Co. Quigley, 21 How. 202, (1859)); Farmer Brennan, 825, 837 (1994) (explaining criminal employs subjective recklessness, requiring finding "disregards harm aware"); T. Sedgwick, Measure Damages §§366, 368, pp. 528, 529 (8th 1891) (describing "wantonness" context "criminal "gross negligence" "conscious consequences"). thus compared defendants 'knowledge falsity disregard truth' defamation actions, Smith, 50 Gertz Robert Welch, 418 323, 349 (1974)), Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. Connaughton, 491 657, 688 (1989). Applying perceived will violate liable 17 There rise standard. instances, simply unaware relevant prohibition. cases, moreover, discriminates distinct belief lawful. underlying novel otherwise poorly recognized, believe satisfies bona fide occupational qualification defense other statutory exception liability. 2(e)(1) (setting "where religion, national origin qualification"); §12113 defenses ADA). Hazen Paper Biggins, 507 604, 616 (1993), observed light exceptions permitting age-based decisionmaking, knowingly age without recklessly violating Age Discrimination 1967 (ADEA). Accordingly, liquidated ADEA "knew showed whether prohibited statute," conduct, sufficient ADEA's scheme. 616, 617. 18 oral argument, common tradition surrounding includes "egregious misconduct" requirement. 26 28; Chamber Commerce United States Amicus Curiae 22 (advancing argument). assume Congress, legislating imported principles governing Molzof States, 502 301, 307 (1992). courts commentators specified aggravated Remedies 468 (2d 1993) ("Punitive guilty bad highly serious misconduct"). 19 Most often, characterized intent. 526, 528; C. McCormick, 280 (1935). Indeed, "[t]he justification exemplary lies defendant." 526; J. Sutherland, §390, p. 1079 (3d 1903) (discussing rubric "[c]ompensation wrongs motive"). positive element conscious wrongdoing always required." 280. 20 Egregious often associated but reprehensible character considered apart Conduct warranting "egregious," example, because state. Restatement (Second) §908(2) (1979) outrageous, others"). Respondent, appears endorse characterization. ("Malicious [is] definition egregious"); 29. That committed egregious, say employers engage independent, quality being subject To sure, acts supporting inference "evil motive." "The allowance depends upon wrong-doer exhibited acts." added); §394, 1101 ("The spirit actuated doubtless inferred parties transaction"); see, Chizmar Mackie, 896 P.2d 196, 209 (Alaska ("[W]here sufficiently deemed equivalent malice, need not, indeed submit jury" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Horton Union Light, Heat Power Co., 690 S. 2d 382, 389 (Ky. 1985) (observing . implied conduct"). Likewise, §1981a(b)(1), pointing behavior provide means satisfying burden "demonstrat[e]" acted indifference." 1981a(b)(1); BNA EEOC Compliance Manual N:6085 N6084 (1992) (Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory Available §102 1991) (listing degree egregiousness nature conduct" tending disregard). Again, "malice," context, taken Cf. Morissette 342 246, 263 (1952) borrows art accumulated legal centuries practice, presumably knows adopts cluster ideas attached each borrowed word body learning convey judicial unless instructed"). inquiry end part individuals, however. impute respondent. recognized place vicarious 974 Solicitor General amicus acknowledged during limitations principal's agents apply context. 23. 23 Stevens urges these here. post, (opinion concurring dissenting part). decline definitive application facts case, important address proper imputing This intimately bound up preceding discussion evidentiary easily subsumed within certiorari namely, "[i]n unlawful discrimination?" Pet. Cert. i; Rule 14.1(a). "On number occasions, issues waived below petition integral they 'fairly subsumed' questions presented." Gilmer Interstate/Johnson Lane 500 37 (1991) (Stevens, dissenting) (citing cases). confined itself addressed parties. Steel Citizens Better Environment, 523 83, 93 102 (1998); H. Northwestern Bell Telephone 492 229, 243 249 (1989); Continental Ill. Nat. Bank Trust I. P. 294 648, 667 675 extent principals torts majority, 968; dissenting), briefing, 27, substantial questioning 17, 49 50, 54 55. discount notion 6. advanced general "that principles, damages." 49. potential properly 24 long awards. G. Field, §§85 87 (1876); §378; §80; Mechem, §§2014 2015 1914). principle, endorsed. Lake Shore Michigan Southern Prentice, 147 101, 115 (1893); Amiable Nancy, 3. 546, 558 559 (1818). Appeals, too, relied interpreting 1981a. Dudley Wal-Mart Stores, 166 1317, 1322 1323 (CA11 1999); Harris, 983 985. Fitzgerald Mountain Telegraph 68 1257, 1263 1264 (CA10 (same 1981). But Deffenbaugh-Williams 156 581, 592 594 (CA5 1998), rehearing ordered, 169 215 (1999). 25 express terms, directed interpret principles." Burlington Industries, Ellerth, 524 742, 754 Meritor Savings Bank, FSB Vinson, 477 57, 72 (1986) (noting VII, "Congress wanted look guidance"). Observing especially Act. promulgating conspicuously left intact "limits liability" established Meritor. Faragher Boca Raton, 775, 804, 763 764 ("[W]e our holding constrain imposition supervisory harassment"). jurisdictions disagree how Ghiardi Kircher, Damages: Practice §24.01 (1998) disagreement); Am. Jur. 2d, §788 (1988) (same), interpretation informed "the agency, rather particular State." omitted). codified (1957), useful starting point defining 755 ("[T]he beginning principles"); Meritor, 72. places strict agent's imputed principal purposes awarding damages: 27 "Punitive master agent if, if: "(a) authorized doing manner act, 29 "(b) unfit employing him, "(c) managerial capacity employment, 31 "(d) ratified approved act." Agency, §217 32 §909 (same). 33 Restatement, authorizes ratifies tortious malfeasing agent. contemplates "managerial capacity" "acting employment." C; Torts, "Unfortunately, good constitutes 'managerial capacity' found," Ghiardi, §24.05, 14, determining meets fact-intensive inquiry, §24.05; L. Schlueter K. Redden, Damages, §4.4(B)(2)(a), 182 "In making determination, review type given employee, amount discretion accomplished." 181. Suffice examples suggest "important," perhaps "top management, officers, directors," "in capacity." Ibid.; 14; §909, 468, Comment b Illus. 34 Additional arise "scope employment" even kind employee] perform," "occurs substantially time space limits," "is actuated, purpose the" employer. §228(1), 504. According rules satisfied, said "specifically forbidden" uses "forbidden accomplishing results." §230, 511, b; 756; §70. makes every comply held 35 Holding faith efforts tension "improper ordinarily himself personally innocent therefore vicariously." b. Where undertaken such compliance, "demonstrat[es] never dissenting); 983, 984 existence written policy instituted operated total bar damages" concluding institution sexual harassment goes way towards dispelling about 'reckless' 'malicious' mind"). 36 Agency's rule reduce incentive implement antidiscrimination programs. likely exacerbate concerns penalizes educate themselves employees VII's prohibitions. Advisory ("[I]f familiarize requirements, requirements 'with indifference' "). Dissuading implementing programs policies prevent workplace contrary "primary objective" prophylactic one," Albemarle Moody, 422 405, 417 (1975); aims, chiefly, "not redress avoid harm," Faragher, 806. regard harassment, "[f]or designed encourage creation antiharassment effective grievance mechanisms." 764. similarly encouraged adopt personnel perverse incentives Restatement's create, compelled modify undermining objectives ibid. 802, "adapt concepts practical VII"); FSB, ("[C]ommon-law transferable particulars VII"). Recognizing prevention remediation, observing Restatements' agree vicariously "good-faith VII." As "[g]iving protection good-faith accomplishes" objective "motivat[ing] detect deter violations." Ibid. 38 independently 's proof. leave remand identify yet opportunity marshal record views reason demonstrate 968. interim executive director, highest 159 remains seen rights. Even effectively replacement, remain, behaved It determine enforce policy. resolution remand. 39 For foregoing reasons, vacated, remanded proceedings opinion. 40 ordered. Rehnquist, PETITIONER AMERICAN APPEALS FOR 43 44 Chief whom Thomas joins, part. I hold scheme monetary implies reserves worst 970 1998). Since otherwise, join portion Part significant limitation, many foreseeable complete bar, 46 Opinion Stevens, 47 Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer join, rejects Appeals' Parts write separately, strongly volunteer commentary briefed present. 52 enacting three-tiered system broad range violations 1964, seq., Supp II). Equitable disparate impact violations; treatment; 53 recognizes, ante, 7, quite obviously drawn There, 1983 (1976 ed., V) "when same intent-based (ADEA), §621 "punitive nature," Trans World Airlines, Thurston, 469 111, 125 (1985) statute." 617 (1993); accord, 126. carefully noted separated "quite cause injury, hand, consciousness (or unlawfulness) other," 38, permissible latter component satisfied deliberate indifferent interpreted explained disregard" essentially well-known difference "knowing" "willful" 126 127. defendant, like employer, "knowingly" intentionally, know "careless[ly] act" order "willfully." Murdock, 290 389, 395 (1933), quoted "willfully" McLaughlin Richland Shoe 486 128, 133 (holding "plain language" Fair Labor Standards either knew outrageousness issue). 55 Construing purely perfectly ADEA, respects "two-tiered" deterring future intentionally Paper, 614 615. are, explains, 9, numerous treat individual differently race, gender, disability knowing ADA. victims treatment prove defendants' intentional, known willful justifies penalty double covered 56 course true society moves closer goal eliminating invidious core mandates becoming increasingly ingrained employers' minds. more come appreciate importance proportions statutes' mandates, continue decrease accordingly. believe, did, hardens, become blameworthy "societal condemnation," McKennon Nashville Banner Publishing 513 352, 357 (1995), increasing acceptance laws somehow mitigates accompanied particularly outlandish warrant special deterrence. 57 Given clarity precision words, common-law relationship irrelevant. enough own focuses exempt exposure indicate spectrum "egregious." Thus, merits opprobrious label probative wrongful motive, prerequisite proving treatise federal, "common-law" wrong. 58 willfully violated An may, hostility toward conceal "true" procedures Whatever proffers willfully, judges value judgments presents inappropriate candidate damages; jury. 59 If accept jury's appraisal draw, reviewing instruction, reasonable inferences favor, ample emphasized, briefs took tangible action" promotion. 47. Evidence indicated qualified candidates job. Respondent's decisionmakers, senior executives Association, occasionally tell supports deliberately fairly woman, manipulated "sham" attempt 60 decisionmakers company policy; employment; ever conduct. Neither claimed ignorance offer "good-faith" believing man legitimate Rather, resorted false, pretextual explanations refusal petitioner. 61 record, sum, contains find follows, my judgment, three-judge correctly decided district 1440 1997). fails direct disposition, respectfully dissent. 62 discusses "whether respondent" "agency Ante, 12. neither litigation least, expressly disavowed. prodded counsel twice stood firm point. "[W]e agree," repeated, precise Court" applicable dispute hand quintessential "company acts," 968 director 974, 979 1434, Tatel, raised issue, explicitly (and correctly) "[t]his present analogous circumstances." 63 absence briefing meaningful gratuitous nonissue ill advised. arguments alternative presented brief opposition certiorari. 15.2. occasions Term, despite argued South Central Alabama, 526 , (1999) (slip op., 10); Roberts Galen Virginia, (per curiam) 4-5 ). reach alternate circumstances, surely 64 accurate advocates takes General, issue. correspondingly really here." He responded stating whenever consequence incorporates espoused §217C Agency. tinkers rejecting Government's giving heard 65 rejection confronted, failure Notes 66 *. Lest doubt crafting statute, Report House Judiciary Committee explains "standard law," Rep. 40, pt. 2, 29, proceeds quote cite approval page others," 56, Education echoed sentiment. 74 approval). substitution Wade's phrase intent" inconsequential; appropriate" term denote injure.

Category: 1