My recent jury experience brings one lesson home to me loud and clear: we are not in the 1960’s anymore. Gone are the days of anti-establishment thoughts and feelings, Us against The MAN. No, this is a time of strict adherence to the rules, coupled with a distinct distrust of the motives of the little guy. In addition, there is a strong identification with the corporate world and the rules and regulations that come with it.
On the jury were people of many different ethnic backgrounds. We had one man from Armenia, another from Ukraine, a young woman from Vietnam, another from Japanese descent, two men from Mexico, the rest – 2 men and four women (including me) were “Heinz 57” Americans. Only four out of the twelve were over age 35.
The jury make-up is significant because this case involved two Hispanic women within Wells Fargo, a service manager and a leader teller, who was a 29-year-old married woman pregnant with her 8th child. The case centered on the plaintiff’s claim that the service manager created a hostile work environment for her by being highly critical of her work and requiring her to work in conditions that were inappropriate for a pregnant woman, such as standing for long hours, not getting full lunch and snack breaks, and assigning her to tidy the storeroom where heavy boxes had to be rearranged. She also stated that the service manager told her that she needed to get her tubes tied. The plaintiff claimed she appealed to Human Resources, but her complaints fell on deaf ears. This was what we took with us to the jury room.
The gist – eight people were convinced that the plaintiff deserved nothing despite the testimony of several credible witnesses. Four of us were certain that she had indeed suffered and was entitled to monetary compensation. We spent the next 2 and a half days going over the case point-by-point and making spirited appeals from both sides. Two or three people from one side would shift slightly on minor points and one or two people on the other would do the same. Finally, after banging our heads against the wall for many hours, there was enough movement to come to the resolution that was obvious from the beginning – the majority of the jury sided against the plaintiff (the woman) and with Wells Fargo (the defendant).
I went into the deliberations naturally siding with the woman. The claims seemed valid and she seemed credible. But many of my fellow jurors came in with the polar opposite impression. They didn’t trust emails as legitimate that had been admitted into evidence (“The dates could have been tampered with,” one juror claimed) and they viewed the woman as someone who was out for the money rather than someone who had found herself in a hostile work environment and couldn’t cope with the discrimination. Most did not believe that it was inappropriate for her to be asked to rearrange the stock room at 8 months pregnant (“That was just part of her job”) or that she could have asked others to help her (“She was the lead teller, after all.”) The service manager categorically denied saying that the plaintiff “should get her tubes tied” though two credible witnesses testified that they heard her say it. Still, the majority of the jury did not believe that “one comment” of this nature was enough to justify awarding the woman damages, however small.
What does this tell me about our society at present? Here are a few observations, in no particularly order:
There was a general toughness in the attitudes of the jurors. This was a “Give me the facts” group and though the burden of proof was not as high as a criminal case, there was not much tendency to bend even slightly. There was also no “We, the little guys” against “Them, corporate America.” No, most of these folks were in defense of the rules and regulations of corporate America and were more suspect of the complaining individual. They walked into the jury room suspicious of this woman and her motives and they ruled accordingly.
As a child of the 1960’s, I grew up watching American society rebel against unjust rules imposed on the people by the “establishment.” I saw people protest the Vietnam War, march for Civil Rights, and burn their bras for equality. The general emphasis of that era was to empower the individual. From my experience recently, I would have to say that the climate seems to have shifted to one that is centered on a suspiciousness of the individual and his/her motives.
It could be argued that the plaintiff’s lawyer did a bad job of presenting her case, or that the plaintiff’s case had too many holes in it. However, I can guarantee you that if this had been presented in the early 1970’s, the plaintiff would have won easily. The entire jury – rather than only a minority – would have seen her as a victim of the system and provided her with some monetary compensation.
Alas, it was a gentler time then in terms of the underdog.
I want to state clearly that these were good and decent people who held these beliefs. The difference was not in their character, but rather in their attitude – they seemed more cautious, more suspicious, more distrusting.
I am trying to understand their position. These are the children of 911, of school shootings, of Boston bombers. They have seen our country at war for years now. They have also witnessed the worse recession since the Great Depression. Corporate America now holds the keys to the castle: good jobs, high pay, an avenue for career advancement.
I realize there are no simplistic answers; however, I am away that we are a long way from those “anti-establishment” days when we erred on the side of giving our fellow humans – no matter how flawed – the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, how I miss that time. I hope very much we can regain some of that trust and optimism. We, as a nation and as individuals, sorely need that reconnection to one other. Our positive future depends on it.
コメント