Court Opinion

ID: 9433856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:41:30.196987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:43.813854
License: Public Domain

*547Chief Justice Rehnquist,
with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For the reasons stated by Judge Randolph in his concurring opinion in the Court of Appeals, I would hold that Congress’ two-tiered scheme of Title VII monetary liability implies that there is an egregiousness requirement that reserves punitive damages only for the worst eases of intentional discrimination. See 139 F. 3d 958, 970 (CADC 1998). Since the Court has determined otherwise, however, I join Part I and that portion of Part II-B of the Court’s opinion holding that principles of agency law place a significant limitation, and in many foreseeable cases a complete bar, on employer liability for punitive damages.