On November 17, 2014, a California jury issued a record-setting $185 million punitive damage award to Rosario Juarez, a former AutoZone Stores, Inc. manager. Ms. Juarez alleged she was fired after she complained about a demotion she received after giving birth to her son. Ms. Juarez was only seeking $160 million in punitive damages, but the jury awarded more – finding that AutoZone's purported discrimination was malicious. She also received over $872,000 in compensatory damages.
The lawsuit alleged AutoZone had a "glass ceiling" policy, making it difficult for women to get promoted within the company. Ms. Juarez was hired in 2000 and promoted to parts sales manager in 2001. At that time, she claimed to have noticed the disparity in management between women and men. According to the suit, out of 98 stores in the San Diego area, only 10 had female managers. Although Ms. Juarez was promoted to the position of store manager in October 2004, she claimed this occurred after she complained about the gender discrimination she noticed within AutoZone.
Ms. Juarez became pregnant in 2005 and her district manager "encouraged" her to step down from management as he did not think she would be able to handle the responsibilities of running the store along with being a mother. After her son was born, Juarez claimed she was still being discriminated against and complained to management, but was ignored. She was subsequently demoted and filed a Charge of Discrimination because of the demotion. After she filed the Charge of Discrimination, she was terminated. AutoZone terminated her because Ms. Juarez purportedly misplaced an envelope containing cash from the register. Ms. Juarez claimed another customer service representative misplaced the cash and AutoZone wrongfully blamed her. Ms. Juarez maintained her termination was in retaliation for her complaints about being discriminated against after her pregnancy. Juarez' attorney announced it was his hope "that the verdict would come to be known as the Juarez Award, which would stand for the proposition that women are an equal part of the workplace, that they have a right to work pregnant, and that retaliation will not be tolerated."
The lesson for employers is that retaliation claims are often easy to prove. If an employee complains about an alleged discriminatory event and an employer takes an adverse employment action against that employee after the complaint, retaliatory conduct can be inferred. In cases of discrimination or sexual harassment, it is hard to find corroborating evidence, making it difficult for plaintiffs to prevail. Retaliation claims, however, are far easier to substantiate. Once a claim for discrimination is made, if a subsequent adverse employment action occurs, the claimant can argue such an action was retaliatory even if the action was based on a non-discriminatory reason. Retaliation claims are on the rise and this significant jury verdict should make employers review their retaliation policy and procedures. Management must be well trained on preventing retaliatory conduct once a complaint of discrimination is lodged. Don't let your company be the victim of the next record-setting punitive damage award!
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
