Ohio Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Apportioning Punitive Damages in Retaliation Case

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court entertained oral argument concerning the apportionment of punitive damages among defendants in a wrongful discharge case. As previously reported here, the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals ruled last year that Ohio's Tort Reform Act required the reduction of $43M in punitive damages to no more than $7M (which was twice the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury) in a retaliatory discharge case brought under the Ohio Civil Rights Act where the plaintiff had alleged that he was fired in retaliation for refusing to fire the shift’s three oldest workers. Luri v. Republic Servs., Inc., 2011-Ohio-2389. There was joint and several liability for compensatory damages (under a single-employer theory). The plaintiff argued that the punitive damages should be awarded against each plaintiff individually in order to punish and deter similar misconduct in the future.  Defendants argued that they were prejudiced by the failure of the trial court to bifurcate the case to hear punitive damages separately.

As stated by the Court’s website, the issue presented is “When a jury awards the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit compensatory damages for which multiple defendants are jointly and severally liable, and also finds that each defendant is subject to punitive damages, does the state law capping punitive damages at “two times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff from that defendant,” allow a punitive damage award against each defendant of two times the total compensatory damages, or does the cap limit the punitive damages recoverable from all the defendants collectively to a total of two times the plaintiff’s compensatory damages?“ In other words, is the punitive damages 'cap' the maximum amount recoverable from each defendant, or from all defendants collectively where the jury found each of multiple defendants subject to punitive damages.

The plaintiff’s argument focused on the apportionment of the punitive damages and led to few questions from the bench. The jury awarded different amounts of punitive damages against each of the five defendants (as requested by the jury interrogatories submitted by the defendants).

The defense attorneys argued that the entire case should be retried because the case was not bifurcated on the issue of punitive damages as required by the Supreme Court’s February decision in Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 131 Ohio St.3d 235, 2012-Ohio-552. The plaintiff argued at trial about the wealth of the defendants during the liability portion of the case, which Defendants assert prejudiced them, even though – as asserted by the plaintiff’s attorney – the defense objection was waived by the defendants’ failure to object to the questions and arguments at trial. The plaintiff’s attorney also argued that the bifurcation issue was not applicable. Among other things, the defendants did not immediately appeal the denial of their request to bifurcate the case on damages. (Even though the recently decided Havel concluded that bifurcation decisions are final appealable orders, the defendants argued the issue was not that clear and should not prejudice them from raising the issue now).

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.