Case Summary

1963 REVIEW DENIED Under CivC 3294(b), punitive damages may be awarded against an employer even if the employer's conduct was not malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent; punitive damages awarded against an employer because of its ratification of an employee's conduct or its retention of an employee whom it knew to be unfit are not based on vicarious liability and are not limited to the amount awarded against the employee; punitive damages were not excessive merely because they were 70 times the compensatory damages awarded; plaintiff's sexual harassment claim was brought primarily to vindicate her own rights, and so she was not entitled to attorney fees under the "private attorney general" statute; because an award of punitive damages made it likely that the plaintiff's attorney would be adequately compensated, in calculating attorney fees to be awarded to the prevailing party, the court should not have multiplied by a factor designed to enhance the lodestar figure.

WEEKS v BAKER & MCKENZIE (Baker & McKenzie) 63 CA4 1128 [See: GovC 12940; CivC 3294, 1021.5; College Hosp v Superior Court 8 C4 704, at 12/94; Kelly-Zurian v Wohl 22 CA4 397, at 3/94; Storage Svcs v Oosterbaan 214 CA3 498; Neal v Farmers 21 C3 910; Mattco v Arthur Young 52 CA4 820, T/AT 3/97; Sheehan v Sullivan 126 C 189; Flannery v CHP 61 CA4 629, T/AT 3/98; Satrap v PG&E 42 CA4 72, T/AT 3/96]