ÿWPC" …# VU:a %› 04¡4Õéøw@ 0x@ 0D¸ ULü 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° U,% 0dQ BµU,ÒU *þB)(DCQ D3” AMÇ 0@0–pÿ v~vÓ AO` Ư 0Du! D/¹! Bè!˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  ÓDÒ tÔôÔô3|x {D|}{~D€D‚DƒÓ€(((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(Ê EZ ‹4Baskerville MT Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌSeptember€3,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ŒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ ž ÒÒ ° ÒòòFosteróó€actually€dealt€with€the€trial€courtððs€authority€to€suggest€anÏadditur,€but€the€standards€governing€an€additur€and€remittitur€are€analogous.€ÏòòFosteróó,€621€S.W.2d€at€143€n.€2.Ì õÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ é ÒÒ ° ÒIf,€however,€the€jury€verdict€is€approved€by€the€trial€court€in€its€role€asÏð ðthirteenth€juror,ðð€(deals€with€consent€of€party€to€additur)€the€standard€ofÏreview€to€be€utilized€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€more€deferential:€in€that€case,Ïthe€appellate€court€must€affirm€if€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€theÏverdict.€€òòEllis€v.€White€Freightliner€Corpóó.,€603€S.W.2d€125,€129€(Tenn.€1980);ÏòòBenson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€Elec.€Co„opóó.,€868€S.W.2d€630,€640€(Tenn.€App.Ï1993).€€This€deferential€standard€of€review€is€consonant€with€the€principle,Ïlong€recognized€in€Tennessee€law,€that€the€jury€bears€primary€responsibilityÏfor€awarding€damages€in€a€personal€injury€case,€followed€closely€by€the€trialÏcourt€in€its€role€as€thirteenth€juror.€òòSee€e.góó.,€òòFosteróó,€621€S.W.2d€at€143„44€n.3.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÒ é ÒÒ ° ÒThese€cases€all€arose€under€the€Age€Discrimination€in€EmploymentÏAct.€€Under€that€act,€if€the€jury€finds€the€illegal€age„based€discharge€to€beÏð ðwillful,ðð€it€may€award€ð ðliquidatedðð€damages,€which€are€intended€to€beÏpunitive.€òòWheeler€v.€McKinley€Enters.óó,€937€F.2d€1158,€1159€(11th€Cir.€1991).€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€&&X„d&ÓÑ#€&&Xd#ÑÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ7€GÐXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€X°d&ÓÙ€€ÙßL€+,);+'h|` ç `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE€ÌÌÌÌÌGENEVA€COFFEY,à àà àà à)à àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ€€€€€€€Filed:€September€3,Ï1996›à àà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àOVERTON€CIRCUITÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌFAYETTE€TUBULAR€PRODUCTS,à à)à àHon.€John€J.€Maddux,€Jr.,€JudgeÌLIVINGSTON€DIVISION,€DANAHERà à)à àà àÌCORPORATIONà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01S01„9601„CV„00003ÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:à àà àœà à›à àòòFor€Defendant„Appelleeóó:€ÌÌErnest€C.€Onks,€Sr.à àà àà àà àœà àW.›€Kerby€BowlingÌCookeville,€Tennesseeà àà àœà à›à àW.€Kerby€Bowling€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àJoseph›€M.€CroutÌRonald€Thurmanà àà àà àà àœà àM.V.›€TichenorÌCraig€P.€Ficklingà àà àà àà àœà àMemphis,›€TennesseeÌRonald€Thurman€&€AssociatesÌCookeville,€Tennesseeà@ àÔ€'„ÔÌÌÌà@ àÌÌà@ àÔ€ÔÔ€°ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€XÔÔ€'ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€APPEALS€REVERSED;ÌJUDGMENT€OF€TRIAL€COURT€REINSTATED.à àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€this€retaliatory€discharge€action,€the€plaintiff,€Geneva€Coffey,€appealsÏfrom€two€aspects€of€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€judgment:€(1)€its€suggested€remittanceÏof€the€punitive€damage€award€from€$500,000€to€$150,000;€and€(2)€itsÏdisallowance€of€the€$20,000€in€ð ðfront€payðð€awarded€by€the€trial€court.€€After€aÏcareful€consideration€of€the€law€and€the€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude€that€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€erred€in€both€respects.€€Therefore,€we€reverse€that€courtððsÏjudgment,€and€reinstate,€in€its€entirety,€the€judgment€rendered€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àGeneva€Coffey€began€work€on€the€production€line€for€Fayette€TubularÏProducts,€a€manufacturer€of€air€conditioning€units,€in€April€1988.€€€On€July€19,Ï1990,€Coffey€injured€her€back€on€the€job;€œshe›€was€paid€workerððs€compensationÏbenefits€for€this€injury€and€placed€on€leave€until€January€1991.€€After€returning€toÏwork,€Coffey€re„injured€her€back€in€March€1991€and€was€unable€to€return€to€workÏuntil€May€of€that€year.€€à àà àà àà àà àÌà àÌà àIn€June€1991,€Coffey€brought€a€lawsuit€against€Fayette€Tubular€forÏworkerððs€compensation€benefits.€€On€July€15,€1991,€the€day€Fayette€Tubular€wasÏserved€with€the€complaint,€a€representative€of€the€company€informed€Coffey€thatÏher€position€was€to€be€œeliminated;›€and€a€few€days€later,€she€was€assigned€to€aÏmore€strenuous€job.€€€Coffey€began€to€have€more€difficulties€with€her€back€andÏrequested€medical€treatment.€€She€soon€found€out,€however,€that€her€workerððsÏcompensation€claim€would€not€be€honored.€She€sought€medical€treatmentÏindependently€from€the€company„approved€doctor€and€reported€the€results€of€thisÍvisit€to€Bob€Farris,€Fayette€Tubularððs€Human€Resources€Director,€œwho›€told€her€thatÏshe€did€not€need€treatment€œand,›€furthermore,€that€€ð ðworkerððs€compensation€wasÏgoing€to€stop€because€it€was€taking€the€company€under.ðð€€ÌÌà àOn€July€31,€1991,€Coffey€received€a€written€excuse€from€her€physicianÏstating€that€she€was€not€to€return€to€work€until€August€6.€€On€that€same€date,Ïhowever,€Fayette€Tubular€made€the€decision€to€fire€Coffey,€the€purported€reasonÏbeing€that€she€had€violated€a€company€policy€by€being€absent€from€work€for€threeÏconsecutive€days€without€giving€the€company€notice.€€When€Coffey€receivedÏnotification€of€her€termination€by€mail€on€August€1,€1991,€she€called€Farris€andÏtold€him€that€she€had€left€a€message€explaining€the€reasons€for€her€absence€onÏthe€companyððs€answering€œmachine›€and€that€her€termination€œwas,›€œthus,›€unfair.€ÏAfter€denying€that€any€message€had€been€left,€Farris€answered€Coffeyððs€chargeÏof€unfairness€with€the€statement€that€ð ðthere€are€a€lot€of€unfair€things€in€œlife;ð𛀜heÏthen€and›€hung€up€on€her.€€ÌÌà àCoffey€was€not€released€by€the€company„approved€physician€untilÍFebruary€1992,€at€which€time€she€filed€an€application€with€the€Department€ofÏEmployment€Security€for€unemployment€benefits.€€This€application€was€opposedÏby€Fayette€Tubular,€but€after€a€hearing€the€department€found€that€Coffey€had€notÏviolated€the€company€policy€requiring€notification€of€absences.€€After€theÏdepartment€rendered€its€decision,€Fayette€Tubular€offered€to€reinstate€Coffey€ifÏshe€would€accept€a€substantially€reduced€compromised€settlement€of€herÏworkerððs€compensation€claim.€€Coffey€refused€to€accept€this€offer.€€ÌÌà àCoffey€subsequently€sued€Fayette€Tubular,€alleging€that€it€had€dischargedÏher€in€retaliation€for€making€a€workerððs€compensation€claim.€€Fayette€TubularÏdenied€the€allegations,€claiming€that€Coffey€was€fired€for€violating€the€companyÏpolicy€regarding€notification€of€absences.€€During€the€trial,€two€former€employeesÏof€Fayette€Tubular€testified,€over€the€defendantððs€objection,€that€they€had€filedÏworkerððs€compensation€claims€and€were€subsequently€discharged.€€After€theÏconclusion€of€the€œproof,›€the€jury€returned€its€verdict,€finding€for€the€plaintiff€andÏawarding€$30,000€in€compensatory€damages€and€$1,500,000€in€punitiveÏdamages.€€On€its€review€of€the€verdict,€the€trial€court€first€reduced€the€punitiveÍdamages€awarded€by€the€jury€to€$500,000,€the€amount€prayed€for€in€the€plaintiffððsÏcomplaint.€€The€court€then€proceeded,€however,€to€review€and€approve€theÏreduced€award.€€Finally,€the€trial€court€awarded€$20,000€to€the€plaintiff€as€ð ðfrontÏpay.ððÌÌà àFayette€Tubular€then€filed€a€motion€pursuant€to€Rule€59€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Civil€Procedure€in€which€it€requested€any€of€the€following€forms€of€relief:Ï(1)€a€new€trial;€(2)€judgment€in€accordance€with€a€motion€for€directed€verdict;€(3)Ïamendment€of€the€judgment;€and€(4)€remittitur.€€After€conducting€a€second€reviewÏof€the€punitive€damages€award,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€in€its€entirety.€€à àÌÌà àFayette€Tubular€appealed€from€this€judgment€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,Ïwhich€affirmed€both€the€companyððs€liability€for€retaliatory€discharge€and€theÏ$30,000€compensatory€damage€award.€€The€Court,€however,€remitted€theÏpunitive€damage€award€from€$500,000€to€œ$150,000›œ,›€and€it€vacated€the€$20,000Ïin€front€pay€awarded€by€the€trial€court.€€The€plaintiff€accepted€the€suggestedÏremittitur€under€protest,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ20„10„103›œ;›€and€both€parties€appliedÍto€this€Court€for€permission€to€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11.€€WeÏgranted€the€plaintiffððs€application€in€order€to€consider€the€œissues€of€punitive›Ïdamages€and€front€œpay.›€Ì€€Ìòòò òÓ  ÓIó óóó.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€first€issue€for€our€consideration€is€whether€the€Court€of€Appeals€erredÏin€remitting€the€punitive€damages€from€$500,000€to€$150,000.€€€Initially,€it€is€œwell„settled›€that€punitive€damages€are€not€intended€to€compensate€an€injured€œplaintiff›œÏbut›€may€be€awarded€by€the€jury€for€the€purposes€of€punishing€wrongdoers€andÏdeterring€them€from€similar€conduct€in€the€future.€òòHuckeby€v.€Spangleróó,€563ÏS.W.2d€555,€558„59€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€we€have€specifically€held€thatÏpunitive€damages€may€be€assessed€in€retaliatory€discharge€cases€to€insure€thatÏemployers€comply€with€the€duties€imposed€upon€them€by€the€TennesseeÏWorkerððs€Compensation€Act.€€òòClanton€v.€Cain„Sloanóó,€677€S.W.2d€441,€445Ï(Tenn.€1984).ÌÌà àThe€availability€of€punitive€damages€is,€however,€by€no€means€unlimited.€ÏIn€òòHodges€v.€S.C.€Toof€&€Coóó.,€833€S.W.2d€896,€900„01€(Tenn.€1992),€we€held€thatÏin€order€to€recover€punitive€damages,€a€plaintiff€must€prove,€by€clear€andÏconvincing€evidence,€that€the€defendant€acted€(1)€intentionally,€(2)€fraudulently,Ï(3)€maliciously,€or€(4)€recklessly.€€Furthermore,€in€òòHodgesóó€we€set€forth€a€list€ofÏfactors€to€guide€the€discretion€of€the€fact€finder€in€assessing€the€amount€ofÏpunitive€damages.€€We€instructed€the€fact€finder€to€consider:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à(1)€The€defendantððs€financial€affairs,€financial€condition,€and€netÏworth;Ìà8 àÌà8 à(2)€The€nature€and€reprehensibility€of€the€defendantððs€wrongdoing,Ïfor€exampleÌÌœà à›à8 à(A)€The€impact€of€defendantððs€conduct€on€the€plaintiff,ÏorÌÌà8 àœà à(B)›€The€relationship€of€defendant€to€plaintiff;ÌÌà8 à(3)€The€defendantððs€awareness€of€the€amount€of€harm€being€causedÏand€defendantððs€motivation€in€causing€the€harm;ÌÌà8 à(4)€The€duration€of€defendantððs€misconduct€and€whether€defendantÏattempted€to€conceal€the€conduct;ÌÌà8 à(5)€The€expense€plaintiff€has€borne€in€the€attempt€to€recover€theÏlosses;ÌÌà8 à(6)€Whether€defendant€profited€from€the€activity,€and€if€defendant€didÏprofit,€whether€the€punitive€award€should€be€in€excess€of€the€profit€inÏorder€to€deter€similar€future€behavior;ÌÌà8 à(7)€Whether,€and€the€extent€to€which,€defendant€has€been€subjectedÏto€previous€punitive€damage€awards€based€upon€the€sameÏwrongful€act;ÌÌà8 à(8)€Whether,€once€the€misconduct€became€known€to€the€defendant,Ïdefendant€took€remedial€action€or€attempted€to€make€amends€byÏoffering€a€prompt€and€fair€settlement€for€actual€harm€caused;ÌÌà8 à(9)€Any€other€circumstances€shown€by€the€evidence€that€bear€onÏdetermining€the€proper€amount€of€the€punitive€award.€€ÌÌòòHodgesóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€901„02.ÌÌÓÓÌ€Finally,€we€made€it€very€clear€that€the€trial€court€must€thoroughly€review€anyÏaward€of€punitive€damages€made€by€the€jury.€€We€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 àAfter€a€jury€has€made€an€award€of€punitive€damages,€the€trial€judgeÏshall€review€the€award,€giving€consideration€to€all€matters€on€whichÏthe€jury€is€required€to€be€instructed.€€The€judge€shall€clearly€set€forthÏthe€reasons€for€decreasing€or€approving€all€punitive€awards€inÏfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€demonstrating€aÍconsideration€of€all€factors€on€which€the€jury€is€instructed.ÌÌòòHodgesóó,€833€S.W.2d€at€902.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€court€reduced€the€punitive€damages€awardÏfrom€$1,500,000€to€$500,000,€the€amount€demanded€in€the€€òòad€damnumóó€clauseÏof€Coffeyððs€complaint.€€The€Court€of€Appeals,€however,€reduced€the€punitiveÏdamages€by€an€additional€$350,000,€resulting€in€a€final€award€of€$150,000.€€TheÏcourt€supported€its€judgment€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àDefendant€insists€that€the€trial€judge,€in€addition€to€reducing€theÏverdict€€for€punitive€damages€to€the€òòad€damnumóó€stated€in€theÏcomplaint,€should€have€reviewed€the€verdict€as€required€by€òòHodgesÏv.€Toofóó,€and€suggested€an€appropriate€remittitur.€€This€court€agreesÏwith€this€latter€insistence.€€After€a€review€of€all€the€evidence€in€theÏrecord,€this€court€concludes€that€an€appropriate€amount€of€punitiveÏdamages€would€be€$150,000,€and€will€suggest€a€remittitur€to€reduceÏthe€award€to€this€amount.Ì€€€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àWith€all€due€respect,€we€cannot€agree€that€the€trial€judge€simply€reducedÏthe€verdict€to€conform€to€the€òòad€damnumóó€clause€in€the€œcomplaint›€œand,›€œthus,›€failedÍto€discharge€its€duty€under€òòHodgesóó.€€Although€there€was€a€discussion€betweenÏthe€trial€court€and€counsel€about€whether€the€€òòad€damnumóó€clause€constituted€theÏupper€limit€of€the€allowable€œaward,›€the€trial€court€conducted,€pursuant€to€òòHodgesóó,Ïan€extensive€and€probing€review€of€the€œaward€after€this€discussion.›€€The€CourtÏstated:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àWell,€I€think€Iððm€required€under€òòHodges€v.€Toofóó€to€review€the€awardÏand€give€consideration€to€the€matters€in€which€the€jury€was€requiredÏto€have€been€instructed,€and€I€need€to€set€forth€the€reasons€for€theÏpunitive€award.€€ÌÌà8 à...ÌÌà8 àThe€court€recognizes€that€the€net€worth€of€Fayette€Tubular€is€overÏ$35,000,000.€€Thatððs€the€amount€that€was€stipulated€by€theÏattorneys€...€The€factors€that€the€jury€considered€were,€number€one,Ïthe€defendantððs€financial€affairs,€financial€condition,€and€net€worth.€ÏAnd€all€we€had€was€the€net€worth,€and€as€I€indicated€that€was€overÏ$35,000,000.ÌÌà8 àFactor€number€two€was€the€nature€and€reprehensibility€of€theÏdefendantððs€wrongdoing.€€That€is€the€impact€of€the€defendantððsÏconduct€on€the€plaintiff.€€The€defendant€removed€plaintiff€for€aÏperiod€of€time€from€her€livelihood.€€She€had€a€great€deal€of€troubleÏseeking€and€finding€other€employment,€and€went€to€a€number€ofÏplaces€before€she€was€finally€hired€at€Berkline.€€She€had€neverÏbeen€fired€from€a€job€before€she€was€fired€from€her€job€by€theÍdefendant€company€and€the€impact€on€the€plaintiff,€based€on€theÏway€plaintiff€testified€...€the€court€was€of€the€opinion€that€this€had€aÏdevastating€impact€on€her.ÌÌà8 à...ÌÌà8 àFactor€number€three€was€the€defendantððs€awareness€of€the€amountÏof€harm€being€caused,€and€the€defendantððs€motivation€in€causingÏthe€harm.€€Itððs€apparent€to€me€that€Fayette€Tubular€employees€wereÏaware€that€this€was€causing€the€plaintiff€a€great€deal€of€difficulty.€ÏThey€were€there€and€contested€her€employment€benefits€claim,€andÏthey€recognized€from€her€conversations€that€the€plaintiff€had€withÏthe€defendantððs€employees,€that€this€was€causing€harm€to€theÏplaintiff€and€to€her€ability€to€make€a€living.ÌÌà8 àFactor€number€four€was€the€duration€of€the€defendantððs€misconductÏand€whether€the€defendant€attempted€to€conceal€the€conduct.€€Well,Ïthe€duration€of€the€misconduct€continued€right€on€through€the€dateÏof€the€trial.€€The€defendant€had€taken€action€only€when€it€was€forcedÏto€take€action.€€The€defendant€denied€all€of€the€statements€of€theÏplaintiff€right€on€through€the€entire€proceeding,€and€up€until€theÏEmployment€Security€hearing€indicated€that€the€plaintiff€was€goingÏto€receive€unemployment€security.€€It€wasnððt€until€then€that€theÏdefendant€made€an€offer€of€reinstatement.ÌÌà8 àFactor€number€five€was€the€expense€plaintiff€has€borne€inÏattempting€to€recover€the€losses€...€€This€has€been€a€protracted€andÏvery€complicated€proceeding€and€litigation€...€and€Iððm€confident€thatÏthe€plaintiff€is€expending€some€considerable€resources€to€have€thisÏcase€heard.€€ÌÌà8 àFactor€number€six€is€whether€the€defendant€profited€from€theÍactivity,€and€if€the€defendant€did€profit,€whether€the€punitive€awardÏshould€be€in€excess€of€the€profit€in€order€to€deter€similar€futureÏbehavior.€€The€profit€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€is€not€clear€on€theÏrecord.€€But€the€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€punitive€award€shouldÏbe€significant€so€as€to€deter€similar€future€behavior€both€on€the€partÏof€the€defendant,€and€on€the€part€of€others€who€might€attempt€to€doÏto€the€plaintiff€what€has€been€done€in€this€case.ÌÌà8 àFactor€number€seven€is€whether€once€the€misconduct€becameÏknown€to€the€defendant,€the€defendant€took€remedial€action€orÏattempted€to€make€amends€by€offering€a€prompt€and€fair€settlementÏfor€actual€harm€caused.€€The€defendant€offered€reinstatement€withÏback€pay,€but€the€reinstatement€offer€was€one€that€plaintiff€felt€thatÏshe€could€not€accept€and€the€amount€of€back€pay€was€not€sufficient.€ÏThe€defendant€has€tried€to€convince€the€jury€and€the€court€that€thisÏoffer€of€reinstatement€and€back€pay€was€sufficient€...€[The€defendant]Ïobviously€did€not€convince€the€jury,€and€I€would€announce€that€theyÏdid€not€convince€the€court€...€The€court€certainly€wasnððt€surprisedÏthat€she€rejected€the€offer,€and€didnððt€even€respond€to€that€offer,Ïbecause€it€was€so€insufficient€on€its€face.ÌÌà8 àThe€defendant€was€not€prompt€in€making€this€offer€of€reinstatement.€ÏThe€defendant€delayed€until€after€the€employment€security€decisionÏwas€handed€down,€some€several€months,€quite€possibly€up€to€aÏyear€later.€€Then€and€only€then€did€the€defendant€scramble€to€try€toÏstop€the€damage,€not€to€the€plaintiff,€but€the€apparent€damage€thatÏwas€about€to€be€caused€to€the€defendant,€and€then€make€this€offerÏof€reinstatement€which€was€only€one€half€of€the€back€wages.€ÌÌà8 àFactor€number€eight€is€any€other€circumstances€shown€by€theÏevidence€that€bear€on€the€proper€amount€of€the€punitive€award.€€TheÏcourt,€in€listening€to€the€testimony€in€this€case,€finds€the€plaintiff€toÍbe€a€very€credible€witness.€€Conversely€the€court€is€not€persuadedÏby€the€testimony€of€the€employees€of€the€defendant,€and€the€entireÏcircumstances€indicate€that€there€should€be€a€significant€amount€ofÏpunitive€award€in€this€case€...ÌÌà8 àTaking€all€of€this€into€consideration,€this€court€is€of€the€opinion€thatÏthe€punitive€damage€award€is€appropriate€...€In€terms€of€the€amount,Ïthe€court€having€made€the€findings€of€fact€in€regard€to€the€eightÏfactors€that€were€considered€in€this€case,€the€court€is€of€the€opinionÏthat€the€punitive€award€in€this€case€should€be€set€in€the€amount€ofÏ$500,000,€and€the€court€so€orders.€€€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àFurthermore,€the€defendant€argued€in€its€Rule€59€motion€that€the€punitiveÏdamages€award€of€$1,500,000€was€50€times€the€amount€of€back€wage€award,Ï($30,000),€and€was€thus€violative€of€òòHodgesóó.€€The€trial€court€rejected€thisÏargument,€and€in€so€doing€made€it€perfectly€clear€that€the€reduction€of€the€awardÏwas€not€based€on€the€òòad€damnumóó€clause,€but€rather€on€the€òòHodgesóó€factors.€€TheÏcourt€stated:€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àWe€had€a€discussion€about€whether€or€not€the€[pIaintiffððs€recoveryÏwas€limited€to€the€òòad€damnumóó.]€€€But€I€donððt€want€to€leave€theÏimpression€that€Iððve€reduced€the€amount€from€$1,500,000€toÏ$500,000€just€because€of€what€the€plaintiffððs€òòad€damnumóó€was.€€MyÏdecision€was€based€exclusively€on€the€factors€that€I€am€to€considerÍwhen€making€that€determination.€€And€it€was€my€opinion€thatÏ$500,000€was€the€appropriate€amount€of€punitive€damages€thatÏshould€be€awarded€in€this€case€under€the€factors€that€I€was€toÏconsider,€and€that€I€did€consider.€€It€just€so€happened€that€theÏplaintiffððs€òòad€damnumóó€was€at€$500,000,€but€those€are€twoÏindependent€situations.€€I€didnððt€reduce€it€just€because€that€what€theÏplaintiff€had€sued€for.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àHaving€determined€that€the€trial€court€did€conduct€a€review€as€required€byÏòòHodgesóó,€and€that€its€reduction€of€the€award€was€intended€as€a€remittitur,€we€nextÏconsider€whether€the€Court€of€Appeals€was€justified€in€further€remitting€the€award.€€ÌIn€order€to€resolve€this€issue,€we€must€examine€the€trial€courtððs€authority€toÏsuggest€a€remittitur,€and€the€appellate€courtððs€authority€to€review€this€decision.€€ÌÌà àIt€is€now€œwell„settled›€that€trial€judges€may€suggest€adjustments€when€theÏjury€verdict€is€within€the€range€of€reasonableness€of€the€credible€œproof›€as€anÏalternative€to€the€practice€of€granting€a€new€œtrial›€if€they€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÏjury€verdict€€œð ð[i]s›€not€adequateðð€(suggesting€additur)€or€excessive€and€ð ðshould€beÏreducedðð€(suggesting€remittitur).€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„10„101€and€102,€òòFoster€v.ÍœAmcon›€Intððl.,€Inc.òòóó,€óó621€S.W.2d€142,€147€(Tenn.€1981).× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àAppellate€courts€also€have€the€authority€to€suggest€a€œremittitur›œ€although›Ïthis€authority€is€naturally€more€circumscribed€than€that€possessed€by€the€trialÏcourts.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„10„102(b)€provides€that€if€the€trial€court€suggests€aÏremittitur,€the€Court€of€Appeals€shall€review€that€judgment€using€the€standard€ofÏreview€applicable€to€decisions€of€trial€courts€sitting€without€a€jury.€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòThrailkill€v.€Pattersonóó,€879€S.W.2d€836,€841€(Tenn.€1994).€€This€standard€is€setÏforth€in€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d),€which€provides€in€pertinent€part:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àUnless€otherwise€required€by€statute,€review€of€findings€of€fact€byÏthe€trial€court€in€civil€actions€shall€be€òòde€novoóó€upon€the€record€of€theÏtrial€court,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€theÏfinding,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€.€.€.× ƒ/ ××  ×€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€cannot€say€that€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€is€contrary€to€the€trial€courtððs€findings.€€The€weight€of€the€evidenceÏseems€to€indicate€that€Coffey€was€fired,€for€a€pretextual€reason,€after€sheÏattempted€to€enforce€her€workerððs€compensation€rights.€€œIt›€is€œalso€clear›€that€theÏdefendant€did€nothing€to€remedy€the€situation€until€the€unfavorable€decision€ofÏthe€Board€of€Employment€Security€demanded€that€some€sort€of€action€be€taken.€ÏAdditionally,€we€note€that€there€is€another€ð ðaggravatingðð€factor€that€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€discuss.€At€trial€two€former€Fayette€Tubular€employees€testified€that€theyÏhad€been€fired€after€attempting€to€enforce€rights€under€the€WorkerððsÏCompensation€Act.€€Thus,€there€is€evidence€that€Coffeyððs€termination€was€not€anÏisolated€incident,€but€that€the€defendant€pursued€a€policy€of€terminatingÍemployees€for€this€illegal€purpose;€œwe›€think€a€fact€finder€may€legitimately€imposeÏa€greater€amount€of€punitive€damages€upon€a€defendant€guilty€of€such€conduct.€€ÏTaking€all€these€factors€into€consideration,€we€conclude€that€the€award€ofÏ$500,000,€1.5%€of€Fayette€Tubularððs€net€worth,€is€rational€in€light€of€the€dualÏpurposes€of€punitive€damages:€punishment€and€deterrence.€€€Therefore,€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€on€this€ground€is€reversed,€and€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€reinstated.ÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓIIó óóó.ÌÓ  Óà àÌà àThe€next€issue€for€our€consideration€is€whether€the€Court€of€Appeals€erredÏin€vacating€the€$20,000€in€ð ðfront€payðð€awarded€by€the€trial€court.€€This€issueÏrequires€us€œfirst€to›€œdiscuss›€the€remedies€available€to€a€plaintiff€who€has€beenÏdischarged€from€employment€for€an€illegal€reason.€€ÌÌà àIn€these€cases,€courts€are€invariably€faced€with€two€issues:€(1)€how€toÏcompensate€a€plaintiff€for€past€injuries€„„€those€occurring€between€the€date€of€theÍdischarge€and€the€date€of€trial;€and€(2)€how€to€compensate€for€future€injuries€„„Ïthose€occurring€after€the€trial.€€The€first€issue€is€straightforward:€œ€the›€court€simplyÏawards€the€plaintiff€ð ðback€pay,ðð€the€amount€he€or€she€would€have€earned€duringÏthe€period€between€the€discharge€and€the€trial.€€òòSasser€v.€Averitt€Express,€Incóó.,Ï839€S.W.2d€422,€433€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€The€issue€of€future€damages€is,Ïhowever,€more€problematic.€€While€virtually€all€courts€agree€that€the€clearest€wayÏto€make€the€plaintiff€whole€is€to€supplement€the€back€pay€award€withÏreinstatement€to€the€job,€òòWilson€v.€S€&€L€Acquisition€Co.€L.Póó.,€940€F.2d€1429,Ï1438€(11th€Cir.€1990);€òòSpulak€v.€K„Mart€Corpóó.,€894€F.2d€1150,€1157€(10th€Cir.Ï1990),€courts€have€also€realized€that€reinstatement€is€not€feasible€in€someÏsituations.€€Perhaps€the€most€common€circumstance€rendering€reinstatementÏœinfeasible›€is€ð ðwhere€the€employer€has€demonstrated€such€extreme€hostility€that,Ïas€a€practical€matter,€a€productive€and€amicable€working€relationship€would€beÏimpossible€...ðð€òòSasseróó,€839€S.W.2d€at€433€(citations€omitted).€€€€Ìà àWhere€reinstatement€is€not€feasible,€the€court€may€order€front€pay€„„€aÏmonetary€award€intended€to€compensate€the€plaintiff€for€the€loss€of€futureÏearnings.€€Because€of€its€prospective€nature,€front€pay€is€inherently€speculative.€ÍIn€order€to€limit€this€speculativeness,€courts€have€applied€the€following€factors,Ïwhich€were€set€forth€by€our€Court€of€Appeals€in€òòSasseróó:€ÌÌÓÓà8 à(1)€the€employeeððs€future€in€his€or€her€old€job€[meaning€anÏestimation€of€what€the€employee€could€have€earned€in€the€old€job€ifÏthe€discharge€had€not€taken€place];€(2)€the€employeeððs€work€and€lifeÏexpectancy;€(3)€the€employeeððs€obligation€to€mitigate€his€or€herÏdamages;€(4)€the€availability€of€comparable€employmentÏopportunities€and€the€time€reasonably€required€to€find€another€job;Ïand€(5)€òòthe€amount€of€any€award€for€liquidated€or€punitive€damagesóó.€€òòÌÌSasseróó,€839€S.W.2d€at€434€(emphasis€added)€(citation€omitted).ÌÌà à€ÌÌÓÓà àIn€the€case€before€us,€the€trial€court€found€that€reinstatement€was€notÏfeasible€due€to€the€animosity€exhibited€by€Fayette€Tubular€towards€Coffey.€€AfterÏconducting€a€review€of€the€factors€enunciated€in€òòSasseróó,€it€awarded€$20,000€inÏfront€pay.€€The€Court€of€Appeals,€however,€reversed€this€aspect€of€the€judgment,Ïrelying€upon€factor€five€(5)€of€the€òòSasseróó€decision.€€It€reasoned€that:€ð ðin€view€of€theÏpunitive€damage€award,€even€when€reduced€by€the€suggested€remittitur,€theÏaward€of€front€pay€is€inappropriate.€€In€other€words,€the€anticipated€loss€of€futureÏearnings€is€more€than€compensated€by€the€punitive€damage€award€which€is€notÍbased€upon€any€particular€loss€by€plaintiff.ððÌÌà àCoffey€argues€that€punitive€damages€are€not€intended€to€compensate€theÏplaintiff€for€harm€œsuffered›€but€are€designed€to€punish€the€defendant€and€deter€itÏfrom€engaging€in€similar€conduct€in€the€future.€€Because€punitive€damages€areÏunrelated€to€the€amount€of€compensation€the€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€receive,€sheÏœargues›œ€that›€it€was€inappropriate€for€the€Court€of€Appeals€to€consider€the€amountÏof€the€punitive€award€when€determining€the€defendantððs€liability€for€front€pay.€€ÌÌà àWe€first€note€that€of€the€few€courts€that€have€considered€this€issue,€perhapsÏa€majority€have€concluded€that€the€trial€court€must€consider€any€existing€award€ofÏliquidated€or€punitive€damages€in€making€its€determination€of€front€œpay›€and€that€aÏsubstantial€award€may€render€front€pay€inappropriate€or€excessive.€€òòWalther€v.ÏLone€Star€Gas€Coóó.,€952€F.2d€119,€127€(5th€Cir.€1992);€òòTennes€v.€MassachusettsÏDepððt€of€Revenueóó,€944€F.2d€372,€381€(7th€Cir.€1991);€òòWildman€v.€Lerner€StoresÍCorpóó.,€771€F.2d€605,€616€(1st€Cir.€1985).× ƒ0 ××  ×€€These€courts€generally€support€thisÏconclusion€by€arguing€that€front€pay€is€an€inherently€speculative€œremedy›€and€thatÏif€the€punitive€award€is€not€taken€into€account€in€setting€the€amount,€the€plaintiffÏcould€receive€a€windfall.€ÌÌà àAfter€careful€consideration,€however,€we,€along€with€at€least€one€otherÏcourt,€òòseeóó€òòNewhouse€v.€McCormick€&€Coóó.,€910€F.Supp.€1451,€1459€(D.€Neb.Ï1996),€reject€this€position.€The€first€major€problem€with€the€ð ðmajorityðð€rule€is€that€itÏturns€the€proper€relationship€between€compensatory€and€punitive€damages€on€itsÏhead.€€Normally,€the€reasonableness€of€a€punitive€award€is€tested€by€itsÏrelationship€to€the€harm€suffered€by€the€plaintiff.€€òòSeeóó€òòBMW€of€North€America,€Inc.Ïv.€Goreóó,€64€U.S.L.W.€4335,€4341„42€(U.S.€1996);€òòTXO€Production€Corp.€v.ÏAlliance€Resources€Corpóó.,€509€U.S.€443,€113€S.Ct.2711,€125€L.Ed.2d€366€(1993);ÏòòPacific€Mut.€Life€Ins.€Co.€v.€Haslipóó,€499€U.S.€1,€111€S.Ct.€1032,€113€L.Ed.2d€1Í(1991).€€However,€the€reverse€is€not€true:€the€reasonableness€of€a€compensatoryÏaward,€the€juryððs€valuation€of€the€plaintiffððs€harm,€is€òòneveróó€tested€by€itsÏrelationship€to€the€punitive€award.€€This€is€because€the€defendantððs€actions€mayÏhave€been€relatively€blameless€and€worthy€of€little€or€no€punitive€response€fromÏthe€jury,€and€yet€the€plaintiff€may€have€suffered€a€large€amount€of€economicÏdamages;€on€the€other€hand,€the€defendantððs€actions€may€have€been€particularlyÏegregious€and€worthy€of€a€substantial€punitive€response,€yet€the€plaintiff€mayÏhave€suffered€only€a€small€amount€of€economic€damages.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoreóó,€64ÏU.S.L.W.€at€4342€(ð ðIndeed,€low€awards€of€compensatory€damages€may€properlyÏsupport€a€higher€ratio€[of€punitive€to€compensatory€damages]€than€highÏcompensatory€awards,€if,€for€example,€a€particularly€egregious€act€has€resulted€inÏonly€a€small€amount€of€economic€œdamages.ðð)›€œBy›€making€the€determination€ofÏfront€pay,€which€has€no€necessary€relationship€òòat€allóó€to€the€punitive€award,Ïdependent€upon€that€award,€œthe€majority€rule€violates›€the€normal,€rationalÏrelationship€between€compensatory€and€punitive€damages.€€Its€invocation€inÏsetting€front€pay€is€therefore€arbitrary€and€irrational.€ÌÌà àNor€is€this€flaw€overcome€by€the€argument€concerning€the€speculativenessÏof€front€pay€and€the€possibility€of€the€plaintiff€obtaining€a€windfall.€€The€answer€toÏthis€argument€is€that€the€speculative€nature€of€the€front€pay€remedy€carries€just€asÏmuch€potential€to€shortchange€the€plaintiff€as€œit€does€to›€grant€it€a€windfall.€€TheÏspeculativeness€of€the€remedy€is€a€double„edged€œsword›€and€is€not€cured€by€aÏmechanism€that€only€allows€adjustment€in€one€direction.ÌÌà àBecause€we€conclude€that€the€determination€of€front€pay€cannot€be€basedÏon€the€punitive€award,€we€reverse€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€judgment€in€that€œrespect›Ïand€reinstate€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àœ____________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌœConcur:ÌÌBirch,›€œC.€J.ÌAnderson,›€Reid,€œWhite,€JJ.›