Citing evidence that a former bartender exposed her genital piercing to co-workers, a Delaware judge has cut her punitive damages in a sexual harassment case from $100,000 to $25,000 –- which leaves her with a net award of only $26,500.

The trial of Shannon Laymon's case featured lurid testimony about “Animal House”-type debaucheries –- mostly after hours -– involving co-workers and supervisors at the Lobby House restaurant in Dover, Del. Among other things, an underage waitress danced on the bar in her G-string and bra at a New Year's Eve party.

A jury in September awarded Laymon $1,500 in compensatory damages for emotional distress and mental anguish and another $100,000 in punitive damages after finding the Lobby House liable for creating a hostile work environment and retaliating against Laymon for complaining about it.

But the 66:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages was far in excess of what the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated is constitutional. And earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Mary Pat Thynge threw out most of Laymon's punitive damages, saying the behavior at the Lobby House was not “sufficiently offensive to warrant an award of $100,000.”

There was also evidence that the plaintiff wasn't exactly a Girl Scout herself. “While at work, Laymon admittedly displayed her vertical hood piercing to two coemployees, bartenders Brian Doucette and Mary Anderson,” Thynge noted in what may be the first judicial decision to use that term for “a piercing in the clitoral area.”

Laymon testified that she only exposed the piercing after being “repeatedly harassed and pressured by Doucette to do so,” but Anderson, a friend of Laymon, said she willingly revealed it to her co-workers.

“[T]he court believes that reducing the amount of the punitive damages award [to $25,000] is warranted, particularly in light of the conduct of both Laymon and Lobby House,” Thynge concluded.

In a separate order, the judge gave Laymon some consolation by awarding her $64,292.50 in attorney's fees.

Laymon worked at the Lobby House for seven months before being fired in March 2006. “The Lobby House was a place where perverted behavior was commonplace,” her lawyer argued to the jury. “Where female employees felt free to run around topless and flash their breasts.”

But the defense portrayed Laymon as as a “know-it-all” chronic complainer with an attitude problem. She was fired the same day that a number of regular Lobby House customers complained to management about her attitude.

In reducing the punitive damages, Thynge said the evidence showed that “the work environment was, at least, sexually provocative. The evidence also indicates that management participated in and encouraged the offensive activities.”

“Balanced against that evidence,” she continued, “is testimony that Laymon participated in inappropriate conduct; that she accused Lobby House of stealing from her wages and expressed her complaints to customers; and, that Laymon only complained of sexual harassment after she was confronted by management regarding her negative behavior.”

Laymon's evidence included a diary in which she said Lobby House owner Ken Caudill told her that “the only think [sic] girls are good for is sex.”

By Matthew Heller
5/27/09