DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Philomena T. Badami Stephen J. Badami Michael James Badami Thomas Joseph Badami Kimberly Ann Badami John Paul Badami Patrick Raymond Badami Daniel Vincent Badami David Christopher Badami Matthew Lawrence Badami v. Terry W. Flood Robert C. Conn Flood & Conn Enterprises Jay Ann Flood Terry W. Flood Real Estate Company, 214 F.3d 994 (2000)

Citation
Philomena T. Badami Stephen J. Badami Michael James Badami Thomas Joseph Badami Kimberly Ann Badami John Paul Badami Patrick Raymond Badami Daniel Vincent Badami David Christopher Badami Matthew Lawrence Badami v. Terry W. Flood Robert C. Conn Flood & Conn Enterprises Jay Ann Flood Terry W. Flood Real Estate Company, 214 F.3d 994 (2000)
Parent Document
Philomena T. Badami Stephen J. Badami Michael James Badami Thomas Joseph Badami Kimberly Ann Badami John Paul Badami Patrick Raymond Badami Daniel Vincent Badami David Christopher Badami Matthew Lawrence Badami v. Terry W. Flood Robert C. Conn Flood & Conn Enterprises Jay Ann Flood Terry W. Flood Real Estate Company, 214 F.3d 994 (2000)
Effective Date
2000-06-05
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/768993/philomena-t-badami-stephen-j-bad... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (27)

Full Text

980 chars 
12
The Supreme Court recently addressed the meaning of the terms "malice" and "reckless indifference" as they relate to the standard for punitive damages in the Title VII context. See Kolstad v. American Dental Assoc., 527 U.S. 526, 119 S. Ct. 2118 (1999). The Court stated that "'malice' or 'reckless indifference' pertain to the [defendant's] knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination." Id. at 2124. The Kolstad Court further explained that, although conduct justifying a punitive damages award is sometimes characterized as egregious or outrageous, it "is not to say that [defendants] must engage in conduct with some independent, 'egregious' quality before being subject to a punitive award." Id. at 2126. In the Title VII context, it is sufficient that a defendant "discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law to be liable in punitive damages." Id. at 2125.