Laserfiche WebLink
B. PUHZTZVB DAMAGES <br />Punitive damages are disfavored by the law and are awarded <br />solely to punish defendants and deter future wrongdoing.-^ Smith <br />V. American Ser^/ice Co.. 611 F.Supp. 321 (D.C. Ga. 1984), a Title <br />VII case, held chat punitive damages were not appropriate because <br />the evidence did not show that the defendant acted with malice, <br />willfulness or reckless disregard for plaintiff's federally <br />protected rights. <br />Under the Minnesota Human P.ighcs Act, punitive damages are <br />provided for in Minn. Scat. § 363.071 subd. 2, and § 363.14 subd.2, <br />but with a cap of S85C0 per plaintiff. <br />Punitive damages should be allowed only upon clear and <br />convincing evidence that the acts of the defendant show a willful <br />indifference to the rights or safety of others, see also § 549.20 <br />subd. 3. Awards of punitive da.mages shall be measured by several <br />factors including the duration of Che misconduct, any concealment <br />of it and the attitude and conduct of Che defendant upon discovery <br />of the misconduct. State bv Cocoer v. Moorhead State Univ.. 455 <br />N.W.2d 79 (Minn.App. 1990). <br />Punitive damages are inappropriate in the present case. There <br />has been no showing that MPRS acted with malice, recklessness or <br />reckless disregard for plaintiffs' rights. The Court found, in its <br />order of October 5, 1594, that defenda.nts had not intentionally <br />discriminated, and the MPP.S promptly changed to a different form of <br />the Watson Glaser test upon being i.nfcrmed that some found test <br />•Val-rer3 v. Citv af Atlanta. 903 F.2d 1135 (11th Cir. 1986). <br />:o