The govt controls the process and it should not be controlling a process from which it will benefit; that’s Conflict of Interest 101. Even all but the most ideological of lovers of govt will realize/accept that the same rules apply and for the same reasons.

No. A jury decides that the money will be awarded. The government should have no role in litigating the case, other than providing the forum for the trial.

The govt will decide if the money should go to itself? No perverse incentive there.

Nope. I would not presume to choose a good charity for punitive damages. Instead, I would be for punitive damages should go to the general fund for the specific purpose of reducing the federal debt. Attorney fees for the prevailing party should be the lesser of a lodestar amount or 10% of the damages.

Good idea. We can’t prove anything but the defendant should be punished anyway.

I’d be open to the idea with some consideration. Allowing the plaintiff to keep at least some share would be useful, especially as punitive damages can serve to make up for hard-to-prove compensatory damages when the defendant has acted egregiously. I’d also have concerns about the defendant (and even the plaintiff in some cases) picking the charity, as that seems very much open to abuse. For a contrived example, a plaintiff who has won a sex abuse case against an archdiocese might have some objection to the damages being donated to a retirement home for priests.

That said, I’m not sure that punitive damages are particularly relevant here. Access to the courts for aggrieved employees is a different issue than punitive damages, and I think there are other ways to address the issues you raise. Punitive damages are intended to be for egregious conduct and should be reserved for such. The defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay are important considerations in crafting a monetary punishment and should be considered. And a far bigger issue is legal fees, which can turn a routine employment dispute into a phenomenally expensive proceeding.

You can be an at-will employee and still have an employment contract (which can double as the offer letter) that lays out the general terms and conditions of employment and includes an arbitration clause. Indeed, such contracts usually emphasize at length the at-will nature of the employment to protect the employer in the future. I wouldn’t want to work somewhere without at least having my rate of pay agreed to in writing. I don’t doubt that some restaurant workers are hired on a handshake, but plenty of at-will employees have contracts.

So you would be ok with punitive damages going completely to charity. then? Y/N?

Restaurant and retail workers, where not covered by union contracts are generally at will employees. No contract, no arbitration clause.

Even many salaried professionals, myself included are at-will employees.

Employment contracts with large companies are adhesion contracts.

I am not for jackpot justice, for companies or for consumers/employees. How about we just get justice?