# Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 10, 2000 · 212 F.3d 493

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6985581

## Case

- **Full name:** Jennifer L. PASSANTINO, and the marital community Charles Passantino, and the marital community, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., dba Customer Support Center, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. United States of America, Intervenor
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 10, 2000
- **Citations:** 212 F.3d 493; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 4419; 84 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1123; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3244; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17382
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Thomas
- **Judges:** Fletcher, Reinhardt, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6985581

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that Defendant waived objection to front pay instruction where “CPI objected to approximately sixteen different jury instructions at trial, but at no time did it make the argument it now advances. In fact, CPI’s own proposed jury instruction on damages includes an inst…
- stating that relevant evidence sufficient for allowing award of punitive damages included fact that “the jury could have found that defense witnesses lied ... about their *546 actions, as part of a continuing effort to cover up their campaign against her”
- holding that employees with positions sufficiently high up in the company are considered proxies and thus would prevent the company from asserting a vicarious liability defense to punitive damages
- holding that Title VII’s broad venue provision “was necessary to support the desire of Congress to afford citizens full and easy redress of civil rights grievances”

## Opinion text

THOMAS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I would affirm the district court judgment in its entirety. In my view, the evidence was sufficient to support a punitive damage award even under Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 , 119 S.Ct. 2118 , 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999). I would also hold that the Title VII limitation on damage awards does not violate the Seventh Amendment. Thus, I do not believe any remand is required.
In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6985581. Public record. Not legal advice.