Lee v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Civ. A. No. 80-1075-CV-W-2.

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: Larry D. McEnroe, Trans World Airlines, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant
• Citation: 509 F. Supp. 1182
• Parties: Kwang-Ting Christine LEE, Plaintiff, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.
• Decision Date: 18 March 1981
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 80-1075-CV-W-2.

509 F. Supp. 1182

Kwang-Ting Christine LEE, Plaintiff,
v.
TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 80-1075-CV-W-2.

United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

March 18, 1981.

509 F. Supp. 1183

Joseph Y. DeCuyper, Snowden & DeCuyper, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Larry D. McEnroe, Trans World Airlines, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE

COLLINSON, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff filed this action against defendant Trans World Airlines, Inc., (TWA) in two counts, alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g) (Count I) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count II). Contending that punitive damages are not recoverable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, defendant now moves to strike from Count I of plaintiff's complaint those portions requesting punitive damages (all of paragraph 12 and numbered item 7 of plaintiff's prayer for relief under Count I). Defendant filed accompanying suggestions in support of said motion. On January 12, 1981, plaintiff filed suggestions in opposition to defendant's motion.

Defendant contends that the greater weight of authority holds that punitive damages are not recoverable in Title VII actions.¹ Plaintiff argues that while the weight of authority prohibits the recovery of punitive damages in Title VII actions, there is some authority allowing punitive damages² under the catchall phrase permitting the Court to award "other equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate."

509 F. Supp. 1184

This Court notes that while the Eighth Circuit has not ruled on the issue,³ every other Court of Appeals that has considered the question has held punitive damages are not recoverable in Title VII actions. Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Board of Education, 585 F.2d 192 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. denied 441 U.S. 932, 99 S.Ct. 2053, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979); Richerson v. Jones, 551 F.2d 918 (3rd Cir. 1977); Pearson v. Western Electric Company, Etc., 542 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1976); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Detroit Edison Company, 515 F.2d 301 (6th Cir. 1975). Two district courts within the Eighth Circuit have held punitive damages are not recoverable in Title VII actions, but did so without citing supporting authority and giving little or no insight into the reasons for so holding.⁴ Winfrey v. Metropolitan Utilities District, 467 F.Supp. 56 (D.C.Neb.1979); Vant Hul v. City of Dell Rapids, 462 F.Supp. 828 (S.D. 1978). Thus, this Court feels compelled to write on the subject

There has been a great amount of confusion regarding the availability of punitive damages in Title VII actions. The confusion results from the fact that in most actions for alleged employment discrimination in violation of Title VII, there are accompanying allegations of a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Punitive damages are recoverable under Section 1981. Claiborne v. Illinois Central Railroad, 583 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1978), rehearing denied 588 F.2d 828, cert. denied 442 U.S. 934, 99 S.Ct. 2869, 61 L.Ed.2d 303; Johnson v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 575 F.2d 471 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 979, 99 S.Ct. 1785, 60 L.Ed.2d 239. Thus, when a court has awarded punitive damages in a typical employment discrimination case, those punitive damages have been awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, not Title VII. Unfortunately, many commentators and some courts have failed to draw this distinction and cases awarding punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for actions brought under § 1981 and Title VII have been erroneously cited for the proposition that punitive damages are recoverable in actions brought solely under Title VII.⁵ But the governing principle of law is very simple: Punitive damages are not recoverable in actions based solely upon Title VII of

509 F. Supp. 1185

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g).⁶

The Circuit Courts which have addressed this subject have given various reasons for denying a plaintiff punitive damages in an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g). Through different analyses, most have determined that it was not Congress' intent to provide for punitive damages. See, EEOC v. Detroit Edison Company, supra, citing Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corporation, 368 F.Supp. 829 (N.D.Cal.1973); Richerson v. Jones, supra. For example, some courts have held that it was not the legislature's intent to punish defendants under Title VII. Pearson v. Western Electric Company, etc., 542 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1976), citing U. S. v. Georgia Power Company, 474 F.2d 906 (5th Cir. 1973); Vant Hul v. City of Dell Rapids, 462 F.Supp. 828 (S.D.1978).

The majority of courts have used various tools of statutory interpretation to determine that punitive damages are unavailable in Title VII actions. For example, some courts have held that the catchall phrase "other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate" does not stand alone and punitive damages are a traditional form of relief offered in courts of law, not in courts of equity. Richerson v. Jones, supra; Pearson v. Western Electric Company, etc., supra; EEOC v. Detroit Edison Company, supra. The statutory interpretation doctrine of ejusdem generis has been used to limit the type of relief available to the same kind of relief specifically enumerated in the statute. Richerson v. Jones, supra; EEOC v. Detroit Edison Company, supra. Thus, appropriate relief is limited to relief of the same general kind as specifically enumerated, that is, equitable relief in the form of restitution. Richerson v. Jones, supra; Pearson v. Western Electric Company, etc., supra; EEOC v. Detroit Edison Company, supra.

The courts have further determined by comparing the Title VII legislation to other similar types of legislation that it was not the legislature's intent to provide for punitive damages. As the Supreme Court observed, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g) was modeled closely on the provision of the National Labor Relations Act which empowers the NLRB to end unfair labor practices under 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 419 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2372 n. 11, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975). "In explaining the provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the floor of the Senate, several of the Act's supporters referred to the fact that the relief permitted by Title VII was similar to the relief available under NLRB." Richerson v. Jones, supra, at 927. Since punitive damages are clearly unavailable under the NLRA, Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938), the close relationship

509 F. Supp. 1186

between Title VII and the NLRA indicates that Congress did not intend to authorize an award of punitive damages under Title VII. Pearson v. Western Electric Company, etc., supra; U. S. v....