Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon

Summary

Justice Ecker's dissent agrees that the prior decision did not establish a presumptive damages range, but contends that the referee nevertheless used an impermissibly narrow and artificial range based almost exclusively on prior agency awards. The dissent would require reconsideration of the damages award because the referee excluded comparable judicial, jury, and other agency awards and failed to account for inflation. Justice Ecker, dissenting, would have reversed and remanded for a damages calculation using a broader and inflation-adjusted valuation methodology.