Legal Beagles

Previous legend || Legal Beagles || Next legend

Yada Yada Yada (the Seinfeld Case)

Debunked: Office watercooler conversation about Seinfeld episode leads to sexual harassment complaint; man is fired, sues employer and complaining employee, wins big!

This is another example of how genitals take precedence over dull things like "employment-at-will". Go ahead, try it -- try to think about fraudulent inducement rather than genitals. Can't do it, can you?

The evidence of the real life case underlying these reports is set out in painful detail by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in its decision in _Mackenzie v. Miller Brewing Co., Docket No. 97-3542, 2000 Wisc. App. LEXIS 156 (Feb. 22, 2000). The plaintiff, Jerold Mackenzie, worked for Miller Brewing Company. Through a series of corporate reorganizations, his position was downgraded (though without a cut in salary or benefits). He failed to receive a promotion to the position of director of a newly-created corporate department, after his supervisor at that time (and other managerial employees) expressed doubt about whether he was capable of handling the position. In 1989-1990, his secretary brought her own sexual harassment claim, which was settled for $16,000.

Then, in March 1993, Patricia Best, a Miller distributor services manager, reported to her superiors that MacKenzie "had engaged her in inappropriate conversations about an episode of the Seinfeld television show." (The one where Jerry struggles to remember a woman's name, recalling only that it rhymes with a portion of the female anatomy.) Best informed Mackenzie that she was offended; despite her request that the conversation not continue, he repeatedly commented on the show. Best asked that no disciplinary action be taken, and never filed a formal complaint. Nonetheless, despite her requests, Miller Brewing shortly thereafter fired Mackenzie for "poor management judgment."

This is the part of the case that received the most media coverage, hyped as proof that hyper-sensitive females are too quick to take offense in the workplace. After the jury returned a verdict awarding a total of roughly $26 million in compensatory and punitive damages, it was also reported as proof that the persecuted male could be vindicated in the face of the baseless claims of the woman.

Except that the jury verdict didn't quite come out that way. By far the bulk of the damages award was based upon Mackenzie's claims that Miller Brewing had defrauded him by failing to inform him about the downgrading of his position -- and that he was misled into continuing his employment with Miller Brewing as a result. Another portion of the award was against the supervisor who had recommended that Mackenzie not be promoted to director of the newly-created corporate department. In fact, the jury in fact refused to award Mackenzie any compensatory damages against Best, the woman who complained about the Seinfeld conversation; furthermore, the trial court set aside the $1.5 million award of punitive damages Mackenzie had won against Best.

Then, on appeal, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed the findings on the claims against Best (essentially absolving her of all liability) and reversed all other awards of damages.

Admit it, even after all that, you're still thinking about genitals, aren't you?

References:

• Wisconsin Court of Appeals (enter docket no. 973542)
• Text of decision, through the Wisconsin Bar Association