Tomick v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
153 A.3d 615
Conn.2016Background
- Plaintiff Michael Tomick obtained a jury award including $500,000 in statutory punitive damages for employment discrimination under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), General Statutes § 46a-51 et seq.
- The trial court set aside the jury’s punitive damages award; the Appellate Court upheld that ruling, and the case reached the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- The narrow legal question presented: whether § 46a-104 (which authorizes courts to grant “such legal and equitable relief . . . including, but not limited to, temporary or permanent injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and court costs”) authorizes awards of punitive damages.
- The majority held that § 46a-104 does not authorize punitive damages absent express statutory language; Justice Palmer (joined by Justice McDonald) dissented, arguing punitive damages are authorized.
- The dissent emphasizes liberal construction of the CFEPA, consistency with federal law (Title VII/1991 amendments allowing punitive damages), the breadth of the statutory phrase "including, but not limited to," and persuasive sister-state decisions allowing punitive awards under similar language.
- The dissent also contends that Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles was wrongly treated as controlling precedent on the need for express statutory authorization for punitive damages and characterizes that portion of Ames as dictum and doctrinally flawed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 46a-104 authorizes punitive damages for CFEPA employment-discrimination claims | § 46a-104’s broad phrase “such legal and equitable relief... including, but not limited to” includes punitive damages; remedial purpose and deterrence support punitives | Legislature’s silence & comparative statutes that expressly authorize punitives imply § 46a-104 does not authorize punitive damages absent express language | Majority: § 46a-104 does not authorize punitive damages; dissent: it does and would reinstate $500,000 award |
| Whether CFEPA should be construed liberally and in harmony with federal law (e.g., Title VII) to permit punitives | CFEPA is remedial and should be read liberally; consistency with Title VII supports availability of punitives | Absence of express text like federal statute means state legislature has not authorized similar remedies | Dissent applies liberal construction and federal-comparison to support punitives; majority does not adopt that route |
| Precedential effect of Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles on requirement for explicit statutory authorization | Ames’s dicta should not control; its comparison of punitive damages to statutory attorney’s fees and multiple damages was flawed and dictum | Ames establishes that extraordinary remedies like punitive/multiple damages require explicit statutory authorization | Majority treats Ames as persuasive baseline requiring express authorization; dissent rejects Ames as incorrect dictum |
| Whether the court or the jury would decide punitive damages if authorized | (If punitives authorized) typical procedure would require proof of culpability; dissent notes second certified question about court vs. jury but declines to decide | Defendant did not have to litigate allocation because punitive damages held unavailable | Not decided by majority; dissent would not reach allocation issue because threshold lost |
Key Cases Cited
- Ames v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 267 Conn. 524 (Conn. 2004) (discussed as precedent requiring explicit statutory authorization for extraordinary remedies; dissent contends the punitive-damages discussion was dictum and erroneous)
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Echo Hose Ambulance, 322 Conn. 154 (Conn. 2016) (statutory-construction principles for CFEPA; remedial statutes construed liberally)
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Board of Education, 270 Conn. 665 (Conn. 2004) (broad remedial language “include, but not be limited to” supports nonenumerated compensatory remedies)
- Haynes v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 206 W. Va. 18 (W. Va. 1999) (holding punitive damages available under statute with language similar to § 46a-104)
- Hylton v. Gunter, 313 Conn. 472 (Conn. 2014) (describing categories of statutory punitive-damages schemes in Connecticut)
- Ulbrich v. Groth, 310 Conn. 375 (Conn. 2013) (recognizing punitive damages serve punishment and deterrence; discusses interplay of overlapping remedies)
- DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671 (Conn. 1983) (discussing statutory multiple damages; cited in Ames regarding need for statutory authorization)
- Alaimo v. Royer, 188 Conn. 36 (Conn. 1982) (distinguishing punitive/exemplary damages from statutory multiple-damages schemes)
- Rice v. CertainTeed Corp., 84 Ohio St. 3d 417 (Ohio 1999) (sister-state authority holding punitive damages available under broadly worded state employment-discrimination statute)