Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Ninth Circuit Substantially Reduces Punitive Award Against Walgreen

By Carl J. Summers on October 14, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Everything for your ailmentsThings have been quiet in the world of punitive damages for the last few months, but two recent decisions substantially reducing punitive awards under the BMW/State Farm factors warrant mention. My colleague Miriam Nemetz will discuss one of them—Grant Thornton, LLP v. Yung—in a forthcoming post. In today’s post, I will address the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Mitri v. Walgreen Co.­—a case in which my colleague Michele Odorizzi and I represented the defendant.

The case involves the alleged wrongful termination of a pharmacist, Sami Mitri, who claimed to have been fired in retaliation for identifying improper billing practices. The jury found for Mitri, awarding him $88,000 in lost wages (Mitri found a new job as a pharmacist shortly after he was terminated) and nothing for his alleged emotional distress. However, the jury awarded Mitri $1,155,000 in punitive damages—approximately 13 times the compensatory award.

After an appeal, a remand, and another appeal, the Ninth Circuit found no error in the jury’s decision to award punitive damages, but concluded that the amount of the punitive award was unconstitutionally excessive and ordered a new trial unless Mitri agreed to a remittitur of the punitive damages to $352,000, representing a 4:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.

In analyzing the BMW guideposts, the court first concluded that Walgreen’s conduct was “of low to intermediate reprehensibility.” It rejected Mitri’s contention that Walgreens disregarded the health and safety of its customers by terminating a competent pharmacist or supposedly engaging in improper billing practices aimed at public insurance programs (the district court specifically noted that there was no finding of any billing fraud).

The court also rejected Mitri’s contention that Walgreen engaged in “repeat misconduct” because Mitri had been disciplined before he was terminated.  In so holding, the court implicitly accepted Walgreen’s argument that this reprehensibility factor is intended to single out recidivists, not multiple steps in a single course of conduct leading up to the plaintiff’s injury.

At the same time, the court held that, by terminating Mitri, Walgreen “arguably placed him in a financially vulnerable position.”  That conclusion disregarded prior Ninth Circuit precedent holding that this reprehensibility factor is satisfied only when the defendant targeted individuals for exploitation because they were financially vulnerable. But this factor does not appear to have materially affected the court’s analysis of the reprehensibility guidepost.

With respect to BMW’s ratio guidepost, the court correctly recognized that a ratio of 13:1 is facially excessive. Notably, it rejected Mitri’s attempt to justify a double-digit ratio by characterizing the compensatory damages as “small.”  Previous Ninth Circuit case law has limited that category to cases in which the compensatory damages are less than $50,000.  The court then noted that, under the framework set forth in Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 422 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2005), a ratio of up to 4:1 is the most that is allowed when compensatory damages are significant and the conduct is not highly reprehensible.

Finally, the court indicated that the third BMW guidepost also suggests that the punitive award was excessive because the most comparable civil penalty is only $10,000.

Having determined that the punitive award was unconstitutionally excessive, the court ordered a remittitur of the punitive award to $352,000, a ratio of 4:1, which Mitri subsequently accepted.

Although unpublished, the decision in Mitri adds to the ever-growing body of case law holding that a 4:1 ratio is the constitutional maximum when the compensatory damages are neither small nor particularly high and the conduct is at the low to middle part of the reprehensibility spectrum.

Photo of Carl J. Summers Carl J. Summers

As a member of Mayer Brown’s Supreme Court & Appellate practice, C.J.’s practice focuses on insurance bad faith, products liability, federal preemption, and punitive and other non-economic damages, with a particular focus on cases that require the presentation of complex medical or scientific…

As a member of Mayer Brown’s Supreme Court & Appellate practice, C.J.’s practice focuses on insurance bad faith, products liability, federal preemption, and punitive and other non-economic damages, with a particular focus on cases that require the presentation of complex medical or scientific information.  C.J. regularly represents clients in the US Supreme Court, the various US Courts of Appeals, and state appellate courts and has argued in the Seventh Circuit, the New York Appellate Division, and several federal and state trial courts.  In addition to his appellate work, C.J. regularly works closely with trial counsel to present and preserve issues for appellate review.

Read Carl’s full bio.

Read more about Carl J. SummersEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Class Action & Mass Torts
  • Blog:
    Guideposts
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo