Compensating plaintiffs and punishing defendants: is bifurcation necessary?

Critics of the civil jury have proposed several procedural reforms to address the concern that damage awards are capricious and unpredictable. One such reform is the bifurcation or separation of various phases of a trial that involves multiple claims for damages. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of bifurcating the compensatory and punitive damages phases of a civil tort trial. We manipulated the wealth of the defendant and the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct (both sets of evidence theoretically related to punitive but not to compensatory damages) across three cases in a jury analog study. We wondered whether jurors would misuse the punitive damages evidence in fixing compensatory damages and whether bifurcation would effectively undo this practice. Our findings indicated that mock jurors did not improperly consider punitive damages evidence in their decisions about compensation. Moreover, bifurcation had the unexpected effect of augmenting punitive damage awards. These findings raise questions about the merits of bifurcation in cases that involve multiple claims for damages.

Sexual harassment: the "reasonable person" vs "reasonable woman" standards have not been resolved.

Previous research suggests that women are more likely than men to perceive a hostile environment of sexual harassment in job-related scenarios. Such findings raise questions about whether a "reasonable woman" standard might be preferable to a "reasonable person" standard for adjudication of some sexual harassment cases. There are sound arguments for both positions, and there is no basis at the present time for unequivocal and categorical support for one position over the other.

Gender influence on perceptions of hostile environment sexual harassment.

Perceptions of sexual harassment were investigated as a function of perpetrators' and recipients' gender. Undergraduate students (100 women, 98 men) were presented 34 scenarios of men and women interacting at work. Participants were asked to read carefully each scenario and indicate on a scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree) their opinions as to whether the scenario represented an incident of sexual harassment. Analysis indicated that women rated "hostile environment" scenarios as more harassing than men, and male perpetrators were rated as more harassing than female perpetrators. Even though some scenarios were rated as more harassing than others, the full range of the 7-point scale was used on every scenario, indicating a lack of agreement on what constitutes harassment. This lack of agreement highlights the debate within the legal community about whether the "reasonable person" or the "reasonable woman" standard should be used to judge sexual harassment in the workplace.