During the week of June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a number of decisions that enhanced the ability of some workers alleging intentional discrimination based on sex or race to win punitive damages and reaffirmed the right of injured Americans to have their day in court.

The following are summaries of the three major decisions handed down by the Court.

1. COURT ENHANCES ABILITY OF WORKERS SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN DISCRIMINATION CASES

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 vote, enhanced the ability of some workers alleging intentional discrimination based on sex or race to win punitive damages. The case involved a woman passed over for a promotion in favor of a man with less experience. The court in Kolstad v. American Dental Association ruled that an employer's conduct need not be "egregious" to satisfy the law's requirement for punitive damages. Once a worker has successfully made a case that a company intentionally discriminated, the worker can win punitive damages if it can be shown that the employer acted "with malice or with reckless indifference," focusing on the state of mind of the supervisor. By a separate 5-4 vote in the same case, the justices declared that companies need not pay punitive damages for a supervisor's discriminatory conduct if the employer had made a good-faith effort to protect against bias on the job.

AAJ, which filed an amicus brief on the winning side, is encouraged by the decision in Kolstad and the Court's refusal to rewrite federal statutes protecting workers in ways that would benefit companies that discriminate. AAJ hopes that courts view this decision as a directive to give the victims of discrimination the full measure of protection and remedies that Congress intended.

2. COURT OVERTURNS ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT, REAFFIRMS RIGHT OF INJURED AMERICANS TO HAVE DAY IN COURT

The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 vote, overturned a $1.5 billion asbestos settlement, making it more difficult for companies to resolve thousands of lawsuits through a single settlement. The justices in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corporation ruled that a company cannot limit the amount it is willing to pay and that people in the group with conflicting interests must have separate lawyers. The decision reined in a legal tool increasingly used by manufacturers and other defendants to settle claims seeking damages for a class of people, potentially affecting product-liability cases involving tobacco, pacemakers and silicone breast implants as well as civil rights and employment discrimination cases

AAJ, which filed an amicus brief on the winning side, views the Fibreboard decision as an endorsement of every person's right to have his or her day in court and that this fundamental American right cannot be traded away against the wishes of injured workers and consumers. The mandatory class-action settlement at issue in this case essentially would have immunized Fibreboard from its legal responsibility to many individuals whose health may still be devastated by the company's product. AAJ is mindful that Congress is considering bills that would give manufacturers legal protection and is working to make sure this special interest legislation is defeated.

3. COURT NARROWS SCOPE OF DISABILITY ACT

The Supreme Court, by identical votes of 7-2 in a pair of cases, significantly curtailed the scope of a federal law designed to protect disabled workers from discrimination, ruling that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not cover people whose disabilities can be sufficiently corrected with medicine, eyeglasses or other measures. The ruling is expected to affect individuals with a range of impairments - from diabetes and hypertension to severe nearsightedness and hearing loss - who are able to function in society with the help of medicines or aids but whose impairments may still make employers consider them ineligible for certain jobs. The cases were Sutton v. United Air Lines and Murphy v. United Parcel Service.