Results & Settlements

Charlene Roby worked as a customer service support liaison for McKesson's West Sacramento Distribution Center. She had been an employee of McKesson for 25 years, with good attendance and an excellent performance record until she developed panic disorder in early 1998. Her medication caused her to scratch herself until she had scabs covering her arms. Soon after, her supervisor began belittling her job, reprimanding her in front of coworkers, insulting her hygiene, and ignoring her during meetings. Her supervisor was openly uncomfortable with Roby, did not say “hello” to her in the mornings, and assigned her to answer phones during office parties. Two years later, McKesson fired Roby for abusing its attendance policy, although many of her absences were attributable to her psychiatric disability.

The jury found wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, disability harassment, discrimination, failure to accommodate and awarded a total of $19,014,000, which included $15,000,000 in punitive damages. Attorney fees of $728,668 were added for a total judgment of $19,742,668.

McKesson appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed in part and held that personnel actions, like being assigned to answer phones, could state a discrimination case, but not a harassment case and reversed the harassment finding. It struck all evidence of personnel-management decisions and then held that there was insufficient evidence to support the harassment claim.

The Supreme Court agreed to review and reversed the Court of Appeal. Under FEHA, an employer is prohibited from harassing and discriminating against an employee. Although harassment and discrimination are separate claims, they may rely upon the same evidence. A supervisor’s personnel management decisions alone are insufficient to constitute harassment. But employment actions used to convey a harassing message may form the basis for a harassment claim. The court of appeal had improperly held that all employment actions were inadmissible to prove harassment and therefore erred in excluding evidence that Roby’s supervisor belittled her job, reprimanded her in front of coworkers, and ignored her during staff meetings. In light of all the evidence, including personnel management decisions, there was sufficient evidence to support Roby's harassment claim.

The Supreme Court also ruled that punitive damages against McKesson could not be based on the conduct of Roby’s supervisor alone, who supervised only four of the company’s 20,000 employees. But the fact that mid-level managers became aware of the allegations of wrongdoing and did nothing would support a finding of ratification by a managing agent.

King started in the position of senior vice president regional manager, market lead, and market president for U.S. Bank’s Sacramento area in January 2007. His performance was exceptional. He turned around his region and created many management plans and processes that were adopted nationwide.

In 2012, two of King's subordinates, who he had warned because of their poor performance, contacted the Bank's human resources department, and raised claims of gender discrimination and harassment. There was substantial evidence that these subordinates were biased and hostile toward King, and there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the subordinates and the accuracy of their reports. HR’s investigation of these accusations from these biased subordinates was an incompetent farce. For instance, King was never interviewed regarding the accusations. HR admitted they did not care if the accusation that caused King’s termination were false, or that King had facts, witnesses and documents that could refute those accusations.

The jury returned verdicts in favor of King for defamation, wrongful termination, and breach of the implied covenant awarding King almost $24.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. On a motion for new trial the court reduced the award to $5.4 million.

U.S. Bank appealed and sought a further reduction. King cross-appealed, challenging the trial court’s reduction of the original award. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s reduction of the award and reinstatement the award to $17,179,000. That award plus interests and costs brought the award back over the original $24.3 million verdict.

Plaintiff was hired by FHC to start up a pharmacy benefit management subsidiary for FHC. He was made vice president in charge of marketing and sales. Plaintiff had an outstanding reputation and was considered one of the "founding fathers" of the pharmacy benefit management industry.

In his first months of employment, Boucher set up the new company, IPS, and initiated contacts with many long-term customers including two that eventually led to contracts that brought in $30 million and $6 million revenue per year to FHC. Other potential contracts that Boucher was working on at the time of his termination would have exceeded $100 million per year.

A subordinate was hired one month after plaintiff. This subordinate had also been interviewed for Boucher's position, and soon after his hiring began a campaign of defamation against Boucher which caused his termination. The alleged defamation included false accusations that Boucher was conspiring to start his own competing company and was turning over confidential information regarding FHC’s acquisition efforts. Boucher alleged the defamation was used to cause his termination and avoid paying Boucher his significant commissions.

California Supreme Court May 31, 2001

Chris Whelan, Esq. Lachi Richards Pete Richards

(Lachi Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 798)- disability discrimination, harassment, failure to accommodate. Verdict $1,401,000+ $980,000 in fees; total judgement $2,381,000.

Lachi Richards was hired by CH2M Hill, Inc., a nationwide engineering firm, as a civil engineer and began work in 1984 in the water resources division at its Redding office. By all accounts, Richards was an outstanding engineer, who consistently generated favorable performance evaluations which continued even during the period of her illness.

Like her father, who played minor league baseball in the era of Jackie Robinson, Lachi Richards was an exceptional athlete, and an Olympic level hurdler. CH2M Hill expressly offered to “accommodate” her training schedule in her almost successful quest to qualify for the L.A. Olympics. However, a few years later when she became disabled and needed some basic accommodations CH2M Hill refused to provide her basic reasonable accommodations that would allow her to continue working.

In late 1987 Richards began experiencing tremors and difficulty walking. Although she could still walk, she began using a wheelchair in April 1988 as a means of conserving energy. In October 1988, Richards was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS). Richards's supervisors initially agreed to her request that she be given a part-time schedule, that she not be required perform any fieldwork, and that she be permitted to work out of the Sacramento office. Richards's symptoms continued to worsen. On her doctor's advice, Richards took an indefinite leave of absence, which ultimately lasted 10 months, beginning in March 1989.

On January 2, 1990, Richards returned to work in the Sacramento office. As her condition improved, she eventually worked an average of 20 to 25 hours per week. She performed some of her work at the office and some of her work at home--a routine that continued until February 1993, when she tendered her resignation. When Richards began her 10-month leave of absence in March 1989, she requested a formal transfer from the Redding office to the Sacramento office, both because it offered her closer proximity to her doctors, and because the Redding office was not wheelchair-accessible. Although the transfer approval process normally takes 60 to 75 days, approval of Richards's transfer took 11 months.

Richards also requested a computer from the company to help her work from home. Her supervisor said the company would not likely lend her a computer to work from home. Therefore, she sought funding from various organizations to purchase a computer. CH2M Hill told her to stop her solicitations because it embarrassed the company. Richards requested but was denied a bed to rest on at work during lunch and breaks. Instead, she was provided a flimsy folding cot, but she had to pay for bedding. CH2M Hill did not want customers and visitors to see the unsightly cot so it was placed in an unheated storage area known as the “black hole.” Periodically the cot would be moved without notice. Upon return from a leave she was directed past her intact unused office and instead set up in the back of an all-purpose junk room area with a haphazard collection of used and rejected equipment and furniture. Finally after 6 months of this treatment she was permitted to move into a new office.

Richards struggled with numerous wheelchair access issues. Her requests to CH2M Hill to address these issues and her patient suggestions for easy and low-cost solutions were ignored. Richards requested adjustments to some of the doors in the offices that were hard or impossible for her to to open from her wheelchair. These requests were ignored. Her requests to move furniture and equipment from hallways that blocked her access were ignored. When she moved the impediments to her access, they were soon returned to the hallways. A slippery and ineffective ramp from the parking lot was never repaired and made useable. The elevator, lunchroom, library, supply rooms, hallways were not set up so that she could use from her wheelchair despite her numerous requests and suggestions on how to cheaply repair and correct the issues. Despite these issues and struggles Richards continued to do excellent work.

At one point, the wheelchair bound Richards, was asked to take a field assignment that would have required her to do a great deal of walking along canal banks and climbing over barbed-wire fences.

When she suggested other ways she could participate in the project, the engineer in charge did not speak to her for several months.

Eventually Richards was forced to resign because she believed that all of the events over the previous four years were negatively impacting on her health. Richards testified, "the accumulation of just so many things, it was just--it was unbearable for me. I could not work there any longer." Richards continued: "I knew my health was on the line. I was risking my health, permanent damage to my health."

The jury found she was subjected to disability discrimination, harassment and that CH2MHill failed to accommodate her. Richards was awarded $925,000 in emotional distress damages and $476,000 in economic damages. In a subsequent hearing the trial court awarded $980,000 in fees and costs for a total judgement of $2,381,000.

Plaintiff Theresa McGinnis began working for the Department of Health Services (DHS) in 1992. In August 1995, plaintiff was transferred to the Maternal and Child Health Branch, where she worked under the supervision of Cary Hall.

Plaintiff has alleged that Hall sexually harassed her from early 1996 until late in 1997. Hall’s behavior toward plaintiff allegedly included both inappropriate comments and unwelcome physical touching. At a deposition, for example, plaintiff described an incident in July 1997 when Hall, after calling her into his office, said he would overlook her attendance problems if she would let him touch her vagina and then he proceeded to grab her crotch. Defendant argued that there was a defense to liability because Plaintiff did not make immediate use of its policy to investigate and prevent sexual harassment. Although Plaintiff told a coworker about Hall’s behavior, she did not formally report it to management until later.

Defense moved for summary judgement claiming she had waited too long to report the harassment. The trial court denied the motion. Defense brought a writ to the Court of Appeal and it was denied. The defense petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

The Supreme Court held “sexual harassment in the workplace by a supervisor is a nightmarish experience for any employee. The employee wants a prompt end to the harassing conduct, but being known as a harassment victim can be personally humiliating, and reporting acts of harassment by a supervisor carries risks that are both professional and economic. When deciding whether to report a supervisor’s harassment to an employer, the harassment victim, who may already feel vulnerable and defenseless, is likely to wonder: Will my employer believe me? Will my employer fire me, demote me, label me a troublemaker, or transfer me to a position with no future?”

The Supreme Court ruled that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) imposes a tougher standard on employers than federal law in cases of sexual harassment by a supervisor. For more than 15 years, California cases have held that FEHA imposed strict liability in supervisor sexual harassment cases. Under this standard, it is irrelevant whether the employer had taken reasonable steps to deter or avoid sexual harassment by supervisors, and the employer is vicariously liable for the sexual harassment by a supervisor.

In this case the court rejected a defense based on federal law that in supervisor sexual harassment cases there would be a complete defense if the employer could show “(a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) 524 U.S. 742, 765.

In rejecting the federal defense, the Supreme Court noted that California’s statutory language clearly established strict liability for supervisor sexual harassment, and the legislative history supported that stricter interpretation. Although the court rejected the broad federal defense, it did recognize that damages could be reduced in supervisor sexual harassment cases on a showing that “(1) the employer took reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace sexual harassment; (2) the employee unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that the employer provided; and (3) reasonable use of the employer’s procedures would have prevented at least some of the harm that the employee suffered.” (State Depart. of Health Services v. Sup. Ct. (McGinnis) (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1044.

Bob Sallustio was a very well respected and highly praised Western Regional Claims Manager for one of KIIC’s largest, most profitable regions. His career consisted of twenty-eight years of excellent performance. His career ended and his reputation was destroyed when he stood up against a “rainmaker” for KIIC and tried to prevent the mistreatment and termination of a disabled employee. Sallustio advocated on behalf of the disabled employee regarding her concerns of harassment, discrimination and denial of reasonable accommodations.

Eventually high level managers became upset and angry with Sallustio, and an elaborate defamatory story against Sallustio was developed to justify his termination in retaliation for the principled stand he took.

These false and absurd defamatory accusation against Sallustio included charges that he was not showing up at the offices for months, that everyone else was doing his work, and that he managed by fear. These false accusations were used to justify Sallustio’s termination. In the charade of an investigation into these false accusations neither Sallustio nor his boss, nor were other key and obvious witnesses questioned, nor were obvious documents reviewed. The so-called investigation was set up to come to a preordained conclusion, not to discover the facts.

At trial these false statements were shown to be baseless and false and denied by the person they were attributed to. The witnesses admitted at trial that “everybody loves Bob,” “the employees were incredibly loyal to him,” and that he had the type of appreciation earned by “fair and good managers.” His accomplishments and performance were completely inconsistent with the accusations used to cause and justify his termination.

Chris Whelan, Esq. Medro Johnson Brian Whelan, Esq.

Medro Johnson worked in sales for Sears Home Improvement (“SHIP”) a subsidiary of Sears Corp. At a company barbeque, St. Hilaire, one of SHIPS top salespersons in the nation, came up to Medro Johnson, his wife and two young children. Then in his best imitation of slave dialect said, “Medro calls me masta.” Showing great restraint, the shocked Johnson took no action against St. Hilaire in that public setting. Later in private, Johnson confronted St. Hilaire about his racist slur to Johnson in front of his wife and children. In response St. Hilaire threatened, “I’m going to get you and you won’t see it coming.” That day Johnson reported this race harassment to the district manager and the regional manager. The district manager intimidated Johnson into silence by threatening that in cases like this Sears usually terminates both people involved. Despite Johnson’s report, no action was taken against the rainmaker St. Hilaire.

A few weeks later St. Hilaire carried out his threat at a company conference. Repeatedly during breaks that morning when Johnson was distracted talking to others St. Hilaire would walk by Johnson and bash him with his shoulder, but then like it was unintentional and inadvertent. After the second assault and battery, St. Hilaire, under his breath called Johnson the “N” word. The third and hardest shoulder bash spilled hot coffee all over Johnson’s chest. Johnson reacted defensively and reflexively with a quick backhand jab hitting St. Hilaire in the chin. Johnson was terminated, but nothing happened to St. Hilaire.

Months later St. Hilaire again directed racial slurs or insults to another African American employee at a company function. Two written statements by witnesses confirmed St. Hilaire’s told an African American employee, “Get to the back of the line, black man,” The district manager, regional manager were involved in investigation and response, but again no action was taken against St. Hilaire. Unfortunately, it became clear that SHIP, chose to ratify and accept such racism to since St. Hilaire was such a high earner for the company.

In their depositions the district and regional managers and the investigator admitted that in both these instances key issues were never investigated or resolved, witnesses were not contacted, interviews were not documented or never happened, and record keeping policies were violated.Additionally, key records were not produced or disappeared. The investigator admitted there were a number of reasons to be suspicious of, and to doubt the investigation and its conclusions.

The jury found for Medro Johnson on race discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination. They awarded compensatory damages of $2,183,773+ punitive damages of $3,000,000 + costs and attorney fees of $3,291,072.40, for a total judgement of $8,474,845.

Former Sears Employee Awarded $5.2M In Race Suit

Plaintiff worked for tech co for 11 years and earned many promotions. After Tech Co. was purchased by a major technology co and C.P. was laid off following a downturn in the market and a series of layoffs. After 3 years she was rehired for a very responsible position. She was an excellent performer for 3 years. The Tech Co. was then purchased by a foreign company. The new President came to California for a visit and inspection.

During the inspection of the facility and staff the President loudly announced to the staff with the HR manager present, “Everyone here is old. The company needs new young people who bring in new ideas and energy.” In discussions with others the president said, “all the (Tech Co.) employees are too old and they need to be replaced.” In his deposition the HR manager confirmed those comments and many other similar comments. He also testified that following a series of similar comments the HR manager testified he told the president, “You can’t say things like that its against the law.” The president responded, “ I am Italian! I can say what I want!” The HR manager testified that he responded, “No you can’t. That’s against the law.”

Soon after the president’s visit Plaintiff and a number of other employees over 40 were terminated. Plaintiff brought an action for wrongful termination and age discrimination. After a series of depositions, the case settled for $2.9 million.

Roe was an employee for (XYZ corp.) (Real names not used.) Plaintiff attended a company conference at resort in Mexico.. At the dinner she drank too much for the first time in her life or was drugged and passed out. She woke up the next morning and did not know what had occurred. She found her manager and asked what happened. At first, he was noncommittal but then said they had sex and he filmed it. She was angry and humiliated.

Taking advantage of the situation he said in the future she had to submit to sex on demand or he would show the video to her family. After constant threats and intimidation for over a month she reluctantly and tearfully submitted to his demands. When he was through, he cruelly said nothing happened at the resort, and he filmed nothing. However, this time he did film her, and he was going to show this film to her family. Plaintiff was overwhelmed and unable to continue working.

A lawsuit was brought for sexual harassment, sexual assault and wrongful termination. Discovery confirmed these events and the case settled.

Mullins was induced to give up his secure job in Pennsylvania to accept a new job with Cal Farm in Sacramento, Ca. He was promised the new job was secure and Cal Farm was not involved in any merger discussions. On the first day of work in the new job everyone was informed that a merger had just gone through and as a result there would be a consolidation of positions. Mullins was soon informed the promised position no longer existed, but he could take a differ position at half the promised salary.

California Labor Code §§ 970–972 prohibits employers from using knowingly false representations to induce employees to move for work, covering aspects like salary, job length, and conditions. Violations can lead to civil lawsuits for double damages for "fraud in the inducement" claims, particularly when employees leave secure jobs based on false promises.