Recent Development by K.A. King-Cameron
Barbara Koppman, Lynda Foersterling, and Nancy McSwain were employed as account executives for South Central Bell until April 1990. As account executives, they were assigned a “module” of customers and responsibility for those customers' accounts. In April 1990, as part of its restructuring plan, South Central Bell reassigned the three employees to a temporary network projects group, a position described by them as essentially clerical. In October 1990 South Central Bell offered them Systems Designer II positions, which they could either accept or reject. Rejection, however, would result in unemployment. Koppman, Foersterling, and McSwain instead opted to file sex and age discrimination claims against South Central Bell, South Central Bell general manager Ed Lother, district managers Bob Turner and Glenn Railey, and sales manager John Canale. Each of the plaintiffs claimed that South Central Bell had discriminated against them by reassigning them to the temporary network projects group and by transferring them to the Systems Designer II positions. The plaintiffs also alleged that in 1992 they were each denied a vacant account executive position for which they were all qualified. McSwain, in addition, asserted that Canale and Turner “intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her and retaliated against her” for filing a complaint of sexual harassment against Canale. The legal foundations for these claims were Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Louisiana Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Louisiana Human Rights Act. The charge underlying the Title VII and ADEA claims was that the defendants forced them to accept demotions under the pretext of a restructuring program, a program that seemingly exempted equally qualified men and younger women.
In filing motions for summary judgment, the defendants presented three issues to the court. The first issue concerned whether the applicable statute of limitations rendered the plaintiffs' claims unenforceable. The second issue concerned whether the Civil Rights Act of 1991 retroactively applied to the plaintiffs' claims. The last issue involved the determination of the appropriate standard for recovering damages for emotional distress and punitive damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, an issue of first impression not only in the Fifth Circuit but also in the nation. After considering these issues, the district court held that unless principles of equitable estoppel apply, the plaintiffs' claims are prescribed; that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 may only work prospectively; and that the appropriate standard for recovering emotional distress damages or punitive damages is “callous” or “malicious” conduct. Koppman v. South Central Bell, No. 90-4503, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9115 (E.D. La. June 16, 1992).
About the Author
K.A. King-Cameron.
Citation
67 Tul. L. Rev. 1263 (1993)