This article is the second in a series based on the results of a recent Jury Impact survey conducted in conjunction with our sister company, MFour Mobile Research.  This survey was fielded in July with 543 jury-eligible respondents throughout the United States.  “Millennials” include all respondents 34 and younger.

In the era of social media, millennials reveal their personas through rosy self-descriptions such as “starving artist,” “image consultant” and “entrepreneur.”  While these terms seem to scream “living off my parents’ money,” they may also reveal a strongly anti-corporation attitude.  A recent study from the Intelligence Group revealed 72 percent of millennials would rather be their own boss than work for someone else.  This apparent disdain for corporations was echoed during our recent survey, when we asked how respondents would award damages in different scenarios – including cases in which a Fortune 500 company or a “large corporation” is the defendant.

Given that millennials grew up during the era of Occupy Wall Street, big-bank crashes and Bernie Madoff Ponzi schemes, perhaps it is no surprise this age group displays a strong negative bias against “corporate” defendants.  For us, the big surprise was how significant the bias gap was between millennials and those 35 and older. 

Respondents in the recent Jury Impact/MFour survey were asked to pick three different damages scenarios from a variety of options in which they would assign “high damages.”  Those 35 and older focused only on the type of plaintiff identified, with babies, the elderly, those younger than 18 and single parents as the most likely to be awarded big money.  Millennials also selected single parents, babies and the elderly as the most sympathetic plaintiffs – but were also far more likely to award higher damages if the defendants were Fortune 500 companies, hospitals or insurance companies.

That same study asked how it would affect a juror’s award if the defendant was a large corporation.  Seventy-three percent of those 35 and older said the defendant’s status would not affect their award, and only 25 percent said they would give a larger award to the plaintiff.  By contrast, just half of millennials said there would be no effect, and a full 44 percent said they would give more money to the plaintiff simply because the defendant is a corporation.

These findings make it clear that for corporate defendants, it is best to avoid millennial jurors if at all possible – or at least give them a thorough going-over during voir dire.  Especially for millennials who embraced Bernie Sanders during his presidential bid, their idealistic, anticapitalist mindset could prompt them to try to use a verdict against a big-money defendant to “change the world.”

If you need some aloe vera for the millennial “Bern” in your jury pool, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010 to find out how we can help.