Sands v. Menard, Inc.

Facts

Sands (P) worked for Menard (D) in an in house legal capacity. P was unhappy with compensation and asked for a pay raise. P sent the following email content: 'Not only do I WANT to get paid more, but, in point of fact, I MUST be paid more (in both cash as well as bonus) if you intend to avoid a lawsuit.' P believed that D was discriminatory to women. In one meeting P responded, 'I've been sitting here working my butt off, and I get nothing. I just get all these promises. . . . What is that, just a big lie to make me keep working?' Charlie Menard shrugged and said, 'Worked, didn't it?' Eventually, D gave a final warning to work out a deal, or they were finished but returned just a few moments later and told her to leave immediately. P asked if he was firing her. D stated that he was placing her on administrative leave. Eventually, documents stating she was terminated were received. P claimed defamation and gender-based discrimination and then retaliation for claiming discrimination. They initially attempted to settle their dispute independently. The arbitration agreement bound both parties to resolve 'all disputes' arising from P's employment with D. The panel determined that various Menard representatives attempted to influence witnesses during the arbitration proceedings. P did not request to be reinstated to her position at D but instead sought two years of front pay. The panel found that P (1) was the victim of pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act ('EPA') and was discharged in retaliation for her assertion of her statutory rights to be free from pay discrimination in violation of the EPA, Title VII, and the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. The panel awarded P v $267,108 in back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages for disparate pay and willful violation of the EPA; $114,944.71 in back pay and bonus for lost wages due to termination, as allowed by the EPA and Title VII; $100,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress; and $900,000 in punitive damages. D also was required to pay P's attorneys' fees, which totaled $129,120.25. This totaled $1,778,280.96. The panel ordered that P be reinstated to the position of Vice President and Executive General Counsel within 30 days of the date of the award with a salary of $166,250, to be increased to $175,000 effective January 1, 2008. The panel also ordered D to pay her a profit-sharing bonus of 15% of her 2007 earnings. D prepared a check for the full amount of the panel's monetary award but refused to reinstate P. The trial judge confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety and denied all motions to modify, correct, or vacate the award. D appealed, again arguing that the arbitration panel disregarded the law by requiring reinstatement. The court of appeals affirmed. It concluded that reinstatement is a statutory remedy under the EPA and Title VII and that neither provides an exception for in-house attorneys.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.