Eeoc V. Auto ZoneIn 1996 John Shepherd reportedly injured his back which limited his ability for activities requiring physical exertion. Shepherd started work at Auto Zone from 1998 to 2003 until he was forced to take a medical leave of absence after experiencing a sharp pain from wringing out a mop. During his time of employment Shepherd sought the care of Dr. Katchen who declared that John Shepherd’s impairment required him to refrain from twisting his upper torso. Even so, Shepherd’s supervisor still mandated him to continue mopping which resulted in further injury.
In the case of EEOC v. AutoZone, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged that AutoZone violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate the physical limitations of Shepherd, by terminating his employment with AutoZone, and lastly by discriminatorily denying him the opportunity to work after his medical leave of absence.
Compensatory damages are monetary awards for a plaintiff which are meant to compensate for injury, damages, or other incurred losses; they are awarded in court cases where a loss occurred resulting in unlawful conduct or negligence of another party. The court decided to award Shepherd $100,000 for “physical and emotional pain” even though AutoZone argued that that amount was excessive. The court upheld the award because the magistrate judge noted that the compensatory damages amount was approximately the same as with other cases; therefore, the amount cannot be labeled as “excessive”. Lastly there was a connection with the award and the evidence given by Shepherd, his wife, and by Dr. Katchen.
The plaintiff and his attorneys argued that the jury could not have found the injuries were of an “unreasonably low quality.” Defendant’s argument was that the plaintiff’s lawyers and/or the jury were grossly negligent. However, the judgment stated that the jury had found the damage was of an “unreasonably high quality.” Plaintiffs’ attorneys also argued that an award of monetary damages for Plaintiff’s injuries constituted a punitive damages award, even though they did not claim any monetary award.
The plaintiff filed a “compensation appeal” filed in January of 2013. It alleged that because of the evidence presented during the court hearing, a jury could not have found the injuries to be of an “unreasonably low quality.”
The judge ordered that an award of compensatory damages be paid to Shepherd in the amount of $100,000. Although his order did not specify when the award would be made, other than that the plaintiff is entitled to an “admissibility score” as a result of his injury.
‪‡In light of the record that has been reviewed here, as to liability for injury in this action for damages in a civil action, such an award by a public official or the employee under contract, or an award by Defendant, of the compensation award shall never be considered either for its actual value or for its future impact on litigation.
Citizens for Responsibility
In December, 2014, Citizens for Responsibility litigated against AutoZone for damages, punitive damages, negligence, and unlawful conduct in connection with the AutoZone accident on August 2015. At its arraignment, AutoZone noted that the company provided information to consumers regarding the nature of the accident, and that it had no record of it being caused by an employee. AutoZone argued that this report was not related to liability and was not a party to its action.
In their motion for judgment of the court, AutoZone filed seven points of law, including:
1. Plaintiffs argue that the auto insurance company failed to give reasonable notice when the plaintiff allegedly lost his job in 2009. He claimed that the compensation for his injuries was an arbitrary class action, and that when a judgment was rendered that the judgment was not a judgment rendered for the defendant but for the other party, AutoZone failed to inform readers of the nature of Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court of Appeals concurring in the majority’s opinion found this error to be relevant and stated:
In the case of plaintiff’s lawsuit, that plaintiff had “no prior experience or recollection of what his injuries were caused by the negligence of the [auto insurance company] and at no time during that time did he have any knowledge whatsoever of what the damages to be awarded by that firm, the amount of damages, or
The plaintiff and his attorneys argued that the jury could not have found the injuries were of an “unreasonably low quality.” Defendant’s argument was that the plaintiff’s lawyers and/or the jury were grossly negligent. However, the judgment stated that the jury had found the damage was of an “unreasonably high quality.” Plaintiffs’ attorneys also argued that an award of monetary damages for Plaintiff’s injuries constituted a punitive damages award, even though they did not claim any monetary award.
The plaintiff filed a “compensation appeal” filed in January of 2013. It alleged that because of the evidence presented during the court hearing, a jury could not have found the injuries to be of an “unreasonably low quality.”
The judge ordered that an award of compensatory damages be paid to Shepherd in the amount of $100,000. Although his order did not specify when the award would be made, other than that the plaintiff is entitled to an “admissibility score” as a result of his injury.
‪‡In light of the record that has been reviewed here, as to liability for injury in this action for damages in a civil action, such an award by a public official or the employee under contract, or an award by Defendant, of the compensation award shall never be considered either for its actual value or for its future impact on litigation.
Citizens for Responsibility
In December, 2014, Citizens for Responsibility litigated against AutoZone for damages, punitive damages, negligence, and unlawful conduct in connection with the AutoZone accident on August 2015. At its arraignment, AutoZone noted that the company provided information to consumers regarding the nature of the accident, and that it had no record of it being caused by an employee. AutoZone argued that this report was not related to liability and was not a party to its action.
In their motion for judgment of the court, AutoZone filed seven points of law, including:
1. Plaintiffs argue that the auto insurance company failed to give reasonable notice when the plaintiff allegedly lost his job in 2009. He claimed that the compensation for his injuries was an arbitrary class action, and that when a judgment was rendered that the judgment was not a judgment rendered for the defendant but for the other party, AutoZone failed to inform readers of the nature of Plaintiff’s injuries. The Court of Appeals concurring in the majority’s opinion found this error to be relevant and stated:
In the case of plaintiff’s lawsuit, that plaintiff had “no prior experience or recollection of what his injuries were caused by the negligence of the [auto insurance company] and at no time during that time did he have any knowledge whatsoever of what the damages to be awarded by that firm, the amount of damages, or
Punitive damages became a well-established part of civil law by 1850 and is defined as a “monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer.” The jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages then the judge reduced the amount to $200,000