Skip to main content

Vance v. Union Planters Corp.

5th CircuitApril 25, 2000No. 99-60289Cited 60 times
Plaintiff WinUnion Planters Bank, National Association$330,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Davis, Hall, Smith
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

Plaintiff Yvonne Vance prevailed in her Title VII sex discrimination claim for failure to promote. A jury awarded $30,000 for lost wages and benefits, $20,000 for emotional distress, and $390,000 in punitive damages, later reduced to $330,000 due to statutory caps. The appellate court affirmed the discrimination finding and verdict.

What This Ruling Means

**Bank Employee Wins $330,000 in Sex Discrimination Case** Yvonne Vance, an employee at Union Planters Bank, sued her employer claiming she was passed over for promotions because of her gender. She argued that the bank discriminated against her by failing to promote her to positions she was qualified for, violating federal civil rights laws that prohibit workplace sex discrimination. A jury agreed with Vance and found that Union Planters Bank had indeed discriminated against her based on her sex. The jury awarded her $30,000 for lost wages and benefits, $20,000 for emotional distress, and initially $390,000 in punitive damages. However, federal law caps punitive damages, so the total was reduced to $330,000. When the bank appealed the decision, a higher court upheld the jury's verdict. This case matters for workers because it shows that employees can successfully challenge employers who deny promotions based on gender. It demonstrates that courts will enforce anti-discrimination laws and award meaningful compensation, including money for emotional harm and punitive damages designed to punish discriminatory behavior. Workers facing similar promotion discrimination should know their rights are protected under federal law.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.