In the Civil Rights Act of1991 (1991 Act), [FOOTNOTE 1]Congress providedplaintiffs with a new remedy for intentional violations of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 [FOOTNOTE 2]�punitive damages. [FOOTNOTE 3]The 1991 Act, however,did not define the standard for awards of punitive damages.

Most circuit courts heldthat a plaintiff was required to prove “egregious” conduct by theemployer, above and beyond the employer’s intent to violate Title VII, to recoverpunitive damages. [FOOTNOTE 4]In contrast, theSecond Circuit held that such a showing was not required; all that needbe shown was the employer’s intent to violate Title VII. [FOOTNOTE 5]

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]