BILL NUMBER: S17A
SPONSOR: GOUNARDES
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the civil practice law and rules and the executive law,
in relation to jury awards for unlawful discriminatory practices relat-
ing to employment
 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To limit the circumstances in which a judge can significantly alter jury
awards in civil employment discrimination cases
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one of this bill amends subdivision (a) of Rule 4404 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), which provides the circumstances
and process by which a judge may set aside a jury's verdict or order a
new trial in civil judicial proceedings. Section one provides that a
judge may not order a new trial or otherwise act to reduce a jury award
in employment discrimination cases under Executive Law § 296, or any
analogous local or municipal human rights law, without fully satisfying
the standards set forth in sections two and three of the bill.
Section two of this bill amends subdivision c of Section 5501 of CPLR
which describes the scope and jurisdiction of the New York State Supreme
Court Appellate Division. Section two provides that an appellate court
may not deviate from a jury verdict unless it can find exceptional
circumstances which compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced
by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption and that remittitur or
additur is necessary to avoid a complete miscarriage of justice. The
court shall give primary weight to the remedial purpose of the law and
shall not limit an award using characterizations of other damage awards.
The court shall not be bound by precedent or a judge's personal know-
ledge or experience from prior cases.
Section three of this bill amends subdivision 9 of section 297 of the
Executive Law which provides a cause of action for employees suffering
discrimination under the state's Human Rights Law (Article 15 of the
Executive Law). Section three provides that a jury award of damages for
employment discrimination shall not be subject to a remittitur or addi-
tur unless the court finds exceptional circumstances which compel the
conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice,
mistake or corruption and that remittitur or additur is necessary to
avoid a complete miscarriage of justice. The court shall give primary
weight to the remedial purpose of the law and shall not limit an award
using characterizations of other damage awards. The court shall not be
bound by precedent or a judge's personal knowledge or experience from
prior cases. The last sentence of this section says that this provision
is substantive in nature, as opposed to procedural, meaning that it
should apply in both state-level courts and federal courts which may
decide certain employment discrimination cases based on diversity juris-
diction. When this happens, federal judges are asked to reduce verdicts
based on state law causes of action, so this language is meant to clari-
fy that this higher standard for remittiturs/additurs should be substan-
tively applied to all courts and is not a mere procedural matter, which
can be easily disregarded in favor of federal law.
Section four of this bill sets the effective date.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
Judges in civil judicial proceedings in New York state are empowered to
overrule and reduce jury awards (known as a remittitur) or increase them
(known as an additur) if they believe that the jury has erred in any way
in its estimation of what a plaintiff is owed. In cases of employment
discrimination brought under Executive Law § 296 (the Human Rights Law),
these awards frequently take the form of emotional distress and punitive
damages which will deter defendants and other employers from allowing
harassment in the workplace to go unchecked.
Judges in New York have begun to generically sort claims under § 296,
however, into certain categories based on details about the case and
defendant, relying heavily on prior case law. A case in which a plain-
tiff has not received medical treatment might be labeled as "garden
variety" and assigned a value of $50,000 or less, no matter what the
jury awarded the plaintiff, where a case involving an "intermediate"
level of emotional distress gets more. These categories, which have no
basis in medical or sociological fact, are simply a result of judges
looking at prior damages of "similar" cases of employment discrimi-
nation. Routinely resulting in reductions of tens if not hundreds of
thousands of dollars, these decisions serve to undermine juries and
public confidence in the civil court system by overturning jury verdicts
for seemingly no valid reason.
This bill would amend the law to establish a higher standard for remit-
titurs and additurs in cases involving unlawful discrimination relating
to employment under Executive Law § 296. It provides that a court may
not overturn a jury's verdict unless it finds that a proponent has the
court finds exceptional circumstances which compel the conclusion that
the jury was influenced by impartiality, prejudice, mistake, or
corruption, and that a remittitur or additur is necessary to avoid a
complete miscarriage of justice. The court may not categorize awards
based on similar characteristics of other damage awards or be bound by
judicial precedent when considering whether or not to alter a jury
award. The court must give primary consideration to the remedial purpose
of the law.
It is the sponsor's hope that these reforms will curb the arbitrary
categorization and reduction of emotional distress and punitive damages
for victims of workplace harassment so that perpetrators of this abusive
behavior are held fully accountable for their actions and victims
receive the justice they deserve.
 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2023: S17 - Referred to Judiciary
2022: S5493 - Referred to Judiciary
2021: S5493 - Referred to Judiciary
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all pending
cases where a verdict has not yet been reached as of the effective date
as well as all claims filed on or after the effective date.

Statutes affected:
S17: 5501 civil practice law, 297 executive law, 297(9) executive law
S17A: 5501 civil practice law, 297 executive law, 297(9) executive law