This chart presents data on the number of discrimination charges brought before the EEOC and resolved in favor of the plaintiff. The bars represent the monetary awards obtained by these plaintiffs for the years 1992 through 2001.
The number of charges filed has increased greatly during in this ten-year period, as we have seen in previous panels. The number of resolutions has also risen sharply, as have cases resolved in favor of plaintiffs. But it is the number of dollars awarded to successful plaintiffs that has risen most of all.
The overall pattern in this chart shows that monetary benefits are rising very much in conjunction with the number of charges of discrimination found to be true, legally definable cases of discrimination. The rate at which monetary awards increased (111%) is higher than the rate at which successful case resolutions increased (89%), but the lines run in a parallel pattern.
A similar pattern of steady increase can be seen in the median values of jury awards given to plaintiffs who win discrimination cases that are litigated in the court system. The monetary awards in the chart above are those determined by the EEOC and do not include awards issued by the judicial system in cases brought in the courts. The table below provides a look at the value of court awards. Shown are the annual median values of jury awards for all cases of employment discrimination and harassment decided in the years 1994 through 1999. The median award value rose 115% over this six-year period.
As employers pay more and more for claims of discrimination, their motivation to reduce this sort of liability grows. It should be noted that employer expenses related to these matters are not limited to awards paid to plaintiffs. Even in cases that are dismissed or dropped by the plaintiff before a ruling is made, employers may have extensive legal and administrative costs resulting from compliance with EEOC procedures.
Many firms — in an attempt to control the growing liability associated with discrimination charges — are regularly sending their employees to seminars designed to educate them on the right ways to interact with supervisors, colleagues and subordinates. Recent court rulings have reinforced the value to employers of such training programs.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 199912 established restrictions in the punitive damages for which employers who implement effective anti-discrimination programs are liable. Programs deemed to be effective are those that strictly define acceptable and unacceptable behavior, establish procedures for reporting violations in confidence and for investigating such claims, and set aside time for the training of personnel in these matters.
The trend towards larger awards in employment discrimination actions throughout the 1990s is clear. Whether or not this trend towards greater awards will continue is very hard to say. Clearly, some people believe that it will. A new form of commercial liability insurance has emerged during the 1990s in answer to the rising costs associated with employment discrimination actions. The Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) policy may, one day, be a standard part of the commercial insurance package.
One can hope that the net effect of all this activity — beyond the work that it provides to labor lawyers and insurance companies — is to reduce the number of cases in which a person is discriminated against, harassed, or harmed on the job.
Median Compensatory Jury Awards for Employment-Practice Liability Cases
| 1994 | $93,000 |
| 1995 | $111,000 |
| 1996 | $127,500 |
| 1997 | $133,700 |
| 1998 | $178,000 |
| 1999 | $200,000 |
Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Charge Statistics FY 1992 through FY 2001, available online at http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/charges.html. The figures on median jury award values are from: Jury Verdict Research press release dated January 23, 2001, available online at http://www.juryverdictresearch.com…s/Verdict_study/verdict_study.html. Original data from Jury Verdict Research's report Employment Practice Liability: Jury Award Trends and Statistics — 2001.
User Comments Add a comment…