Chauca v. Abraham
30 N.Y.3d 325
Court for the Trial of Impeach...2017Background
- Plaintiff (physical therapy aide) sued employer and supervisors for sex/pregnancy discrimination under federal law, NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL; jury found liability and awarded only compensatory damages.
- At trial plaintiff requested a NYCHRL punitive-damages charge; the district court refused, applying Title VII's punitive-damages standard (malice or reckless indifference) and denying the instruction.
- The Second Circuit certified the question whether Title VII's standard applies to punitive damages under the NYCHRL, given the City Council’s 2005 Restoration Act directing liberal construction of the NYCHRL.
- The New York Court of Appeals addressed the certified question: the NYCHRL authorizes punitive damages but is silent as to the standard for awarding them.
- The Court held that, consistent with liberal construction and statutory language, New York's common-law punitive-damages standard (as stated in Home Ins. Co.) applies under the NYCHRL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for punitive damages under NYCHRL | Chauca: punitive charge should follow any finding of liability (automatic charge) | Defendants: Title VII standard (malice or reckless indifference) | Adopted Home Ins. common-law standard: willful/wanton negligence, recklessness, or conscious disregard of others' rights |
| Whether Title VII (Kolstad) standard governs | N/A (plaintiff rejected Title VII importation) | Title VII's malice or reckless-indifference standard should apply | Rejected Title VII standard as inconsistent with the City Council's liberal-construction directive |
| Effect of Restoration Act and liberal-construction mandate | Supports automatic punitive charge on liability to maximize protection | Restoration Act does not change the need for heightened culpability | Restoration Act supports a more plaintiff-favorable standard but does not abolish a heightened culpability requirement; Home Ins. fits the "most liberal construction reasonably possible" |
| Knowledge-of-law requirement for punitive damages | Punitive damages should not require awareness of illegality | Kolstad requires employer know it may be violating federal law | No knowledge-of-law requirement; Home Ins. standard does not require awareness that conduct violates the law |
Key Cases Cited
- Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 196 (N.Y. 1990) (articulated New York common-law standard for punitive damages: conscious disregard or recklessness)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Assn., 527 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1999) (Title VII punitive-damages standard requires malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights)
- Farias v. Instructional Sys., Inc., 259 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) (Second Circuit had applied Title VII standard to NYCHRL punitive damages)
- Albunio v. City of New York, 16 N.Y.3d 472 (N.Y. 2011) (NYCHRL must be construed broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs)
- Ross v. Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 478 (N.Y. 2007) (punitive damages serve to punish and deter reprehensible conduct)