The California Supreme Court has refused to review the decision of an appellate court, which is the first reported employment law case in California (often known as the land of exorbitant and runaway jury verdicts) to address the proper ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.
The California Supreme Court has refused to review the decision of an appellate court, which is the first reported employment law case in California (often known as the land of exorbitant and runaway jury verdicts) to address the proper ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.
See Gober v. Ralphs Grocery Co. As discussed in our previous
Legal Alert, the California Court of Appeal held that the maximum permissible ratio between the punitive damages and compensatory damages awarded was 6 to 1.
The decision was a major blow to the plaintiffs in Gober, and to the plaintiff employment bar statewide. Not only did the Gober plaintiffs seek review and depublication of the decision, numerous plaintiff employment bar associations filed amicus (friend of the court) letters and briefs supporting review and depublication. On June 14, 2006, after detailed briefing, the California Supreme Court denied review.
Helene Wasserman, a partner in Ford & Harrison's Los Angeles office, handled the case for Ralphs. If you have any questions regarding the case or California labor and employment laws in general, please contact Ms. Wasserman at
hwasserman@fordharrison.com or 213-237-2403 or any attorney in our
Los Angeles office.