The D.C. Human Rights Act allows employees in certain instances to pursue punitive damages for egregious discrimination and retaliation in the workplace — without the limitations imposed under federal law. A DCHRA claim can potentially lead to larger monetary awards and the opportunity to sue the individual supervisor who discriminated against you. To receive punitive damages, you’ll not only need to prove that discrimination or retaliation occurred but also that it was done to deliberately cause harm.
This article by
TELG principal & general counsel Nicholas Woodfield and TELG associate Charles Early was published by The Employment Law Group, P.C. on July 13, 2026.
When Employers Cross the Line: Punitive Damages Under the D.C. Human Rights Act
By Nicholas Woodfield and Charles Early
IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of July 2026.
Losing your job can be a difficult situation regardless of the circumstances, but it can feel even harder to bear when you’ve been fired unfairly. What if your employer fired you for reporting discrimination? Or your employer or a coworker deliberately attempted to harm you? Or you endured months of harassment while management looked the other way?
Compensation for lost wages and mental anguish are the typical remedies in successful employment cases, but sometimes they do not address the degree of the egregiousness and employer engaged in. Punitive damages might then deliver the justice warranted when an employer’s conduct is especially harmful.
Employees in Washington, D.C., who have been discriminated or retaliated against by their employers can be awarded additional money in the form of punitive damages under the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA) when fact scenarios are particularly outrageous.
What Are Punitive Damages?
Punitive damages are awarded when a jury or judge decides that a defendant’s actions were so egregious that they warrant punishment. Where compensatory damages aim to make up for measurable financial losses or emotional harm, punitive damages are meant to deter defendants from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
An employee seeking punitive damages must show that their employer acted with “actual malice,” which we’ll explain further in a later section.
What Is the D.C. Human Rights Act?
The DCHRA prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations in D.C. In the workplace, the law makes it illegal for employers to unfairly make decisions regarding personnel changes, discipline or pay based on 23 protected traits, including:
- Age,
- Disability,
- Race,
- Familial status,
- Political affiliation,
- Religion,
- Sexual orientation,
- Personal appearance,
- And more.
This, for example, would make it illegal for an employer to deny someone a promotion because they’re Muslim. The DCHRA also prohibits retaliation against employees who report discrimination or participate in any related investigations. It is a powerful instrument for holding employers accountable for discrimination and retaliation — in many cases even more so than federal law.
What Makes the DCHRA Different (and Potentially a More Effective Mechanism for Achieving Justice) Than Federal Law?
Most workplace discrimination and retaliation claims are brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which allows employees to receive compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages. However, the maximum combined amount that an employee may be awarded is $300,000, regardless of how big the employer is.
Unlike Title VII, the DCHRA places no statutory cap on non-economic or punitive damages, and as a result, employees who prove severe discrimination or retaliation may be able to recover substantially more than would be available under federal law.
The DCHRA also allows for potential individual liability,[1] meaning that the person who commits the discriminatory act (such as a supervisor) can in certain circumstances also be held personally liable for their discrimination.
All in all, the DCHRA can result in significantly greater accountability for employers and significantly greater monetary compensation for employees.
How to Get Awarded Punitive Damages Under the DCHRA
The DCHRA does not expressly mention punitive damages, but D.C. courts have held that they are available in appropriate cases.
In Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland,[2] the D.C. Court of Appeals solidified the availability of punitive damages and pointed to the principles previously established in Robinson v. Sarisky,[3] which stated that “punitive damages may be awarded for [] acts aggravated by evil motive, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or for outrageous conduct … in willful disregard for another’s rights.”[4]
Obtaining punitive damages requires a two-step showing. First, the employee must prove that discrimination (or retaliation) occurred. Second, they must prove that the discrimination and/or retaliation was accompanied by particularly egregious conduct or malicious intent. If the employee satisfies both requirements, the jury may decide whether to award punitive damages and, if so, how much to award.
Step One: Proving Discrimination or Retaliation
For a successful DCHRA complaint, an employee would need to establish that:
- They possess a protected trait (e.g., gender, race, or disability status), or they engaged in a “protected activity” to oppose illegal acts under the DCHRA (e.g., reporting discrimination or participating in an internal investigation);
- Their employer took an adverse employment action (e.g., failed to promote the employee accordingly, paid them less, or terminated them); and
- There is a direct link between the employee’s protected status or activity and the employer’s adverse action.
The employee must submit sufficient evidence to show that it is more likely than not that the discrimination/retaliation occurred. Lawyers and judges refer to this “more likely than not” standard as a “preponderance of the evidence.”
Step Two: Proving “Actual Malice”
Punitive damages are not available in every case under the DCHRA. An employee must prove that the defendant — or someone whose actions the defendant was legally liable for at the time — acted with “malice.” This means the person intentionally attempted to mistreat the employee.
Malice can be shown in many ways. Some examples include an employer:
- Reprimanding an employee for performance issues that the employer or individual actually knows didn’t exist;
- Spreading false information about an employee to harm their reputation;
- Making threats, such as, “you’ll regret this” or “I’ll make sure you never work here again.”
Proving malice requires a more demanding level of evidence. An employee must present “clear and convincing evidence” that the discrimination or retaliation was “aggravated by egregious conduct and a state of mind that justifies punitive damages.”[5] Courts have explained that clear and convincing proof is evidence that is strong enough to leave the jury with a firm belief that the employee’s claim is true.[6]
Who Is Liable for Punitive Damages?
Generally, an employer would have had to endorsed or authorized the illegal action themselves to potentially be held liable for punitive damages. They can also be liable if an officer, director, or manager of their company committed or authorized the action and acted with malice.
An employer can’t usually be subject to punitive damages for a regular employee’s actions, however. Employers are responsible for harm done by any of their employees who are acting within the course and scope of their employment, but that harm is paid for through compensatory damages.
Remember that punitive damages are meant to punish the person who acted with malice, so why would the employer be punished when it was another employee who did the illegal action? The exception is supervisors to whom employers give the authority that allows them to take adverse actions against an employee.
The DCHRA also includes the potential for individual liability,[7] meaning that the individual person who commits the illegal act might be held personally liable and required to pay punitive damages.
Whether punitive damages should be awarded, what the amount should be, and who should be required to pay it is up to the jury — for the most part. The amount awarded might be reduced if the court determines that it’s excessively disproportionate to the other damages awarded or otherwise unfairly large for the actual harm done, which would violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause.[8]
Can Requesting Punitive Damages Help My Case?
A viable claim for punitive damages can result in a faster and more favorable resolution.
Going to trial can be risky for employers. A jury might side with the employee and award punitive damages, possibly making the overall award significantly larger than it would be under federal law. The damages might get reduced later, but either way, the employer will still have to pay whatever amount the court deems appropriate based on factors such as the nature of the misconduct and the employer’s relative wealth. As one court observed, “the wealthier the [employer] the greater the award.”[9]
The threat of having to pay more money in damages can make employers more willing to offer a favorable settlement. Employers may also wish to avoid the reputational harm that can result from allegations of egregious discriminatory conduct becoming part of the public record.
Making a claim for punitive damages can be a powerful strategy in negotiating and settling a DCHRA claim, and it can be even more powerful in the courtroom. If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination or retaliation in the workplace, an experienced employment attorney can evaluate your claim and determine whether punitive damages may be available.
———-
[1] D.C. Code §§ 2-1402.11 & 2-1402.61.
[2] Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland, 631 A.2d 354, 372 (D.C. 1993).
[3] Sutherland, 631 A.2d at 372 citing to Robinson v. Sarisky, 535 A.2d 901, 906–908 (D.C.1988).
[4] Robinson, 535 A.2d at 907.
[5] Id.
[6] In re Dortch, 860 A.2d 346, 358 (D.C. 2004).
[7] D.C. Code §§ 2-1402.11 & 2-1402.61.
[8] See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).
[9] Robinson, 535 A.2d at 907.
———-
Nicholas Woodfield is a principal and general counsel at The Employment Law Group, P.C.; Charles Early is an associate at the firm.
