Michigan Jury Hits Church Broadcaster With $60.2 Million Verdict

A Michigan jury awarded a Black television minister $9.2 million in compensatory damages and $51 million in punitive damages — $60.2 million total — in a race discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation case against his employer, broadcaster The Word Network, Church of the Word.

The verdict's size is the story, but its structure matters more to employers. The minister brought his race claims under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, which — unlike Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — imposes no cap on punitive damages. Under Title VII, compensatory and punitive damages combined are capped by employer size. A claim pleaded under Section 1981 faces no such ceiling, which is exactly how a $51 million punitive figure becomes legally possible.

What did the jury actually hear?

The trial centered on a meme depicting the station owner in a white fur coat and hat — portrayed, according to the plaintiff, to give the impression of a pimp — surrounded by Black ministers who appeared on the network. The minister testified that the owner frequently shared the meme and repeatedly made racially offensive comments, and that the conduct continued after he asked the owner to stop.

The plaintiff also testified that the station owner mocked his height and called him "Tattoo," a reference to a character from the 1970s television show "Fantasy Island."

The network's defense was relational. It argued the owner and the minister had a decades-long relationship built on joking and playful insults. The station owner claimed the minister frequently joked about the owner's Jewish heritage and made comments about his clothing and money.

The jury weighed that framing and rejected it. Roughly $51 million worth.

Why didn't the "we were joking" defense work?

Because it rarely does. The case joins a long line of decisions confirming that mutual banter is not a recognized defense to unlawful harassment, particularly once an employee has asked the conduct to stop. The retaliation claim added weight: the plaintiff alleged the harassment continued after his complaint, which converts a workplace culture problem into a documented escalation.

What should employers take from this?

The lessons are familiar, and the verdict price-tags them:

• Litigation is uncertain. An angry jury can punish employers it perceives as cavalier or uncaring — here, at a rate of $51 million beyond actual harm.
• "We were only joking with each other" is not usually a winning defense to a claim of unlawful harassment.
• Take every harassment allegation seriously, and make sure the behavior stops after the complaint is made. The failure to stop is what turns a complaint into a retaliation count.

The complaint-response obligation deserves the emphasis. The plaintiff's core allegation was not merely that the conduct occurred but that it persisted after he objected. For HR, that shifts the operational question from "was the conduct acceptable?" to "did our process terminate it?" — a question answerable through documentation, follow-up and verification rather than assumption.

Is Section 1981 now the bigger exposure?

For employers, the verdict is a reminder to assess litigation risk under more than Title VII. Section 1981 claims, with no punitive damages cap, expose employers to jury-driven figures that a Title VII framework would have capped at a small fraction of this award. That exposure should inform both settlement posture and the seriousness assigned to internal complaints — before a Michigan jury assigns a number instead.

Attorney Sean A. Monson, a shareholder with Parsons Behle & Latimer, outlined the case's practical lessons for employers in his analysis of the verdict.