Dee Kotla v. Regents of the University of California dba Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Published: May 18, 2002 | Result Date: Mar. 11, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: V0147998 Verdict – $1,000,000
Judge
Court
Alameda Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
J. Gary Gwilliam
(Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer APC)
Defendant
Eric A. Grover
(Keller Grover LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Jay S. Finkelman
(medical)
Paul S.D. Berg
(medical)
Patrick F. Mason Ph.D.
(technical)
Defendant
Jacob P. Panzarella
(medical)
Jerald H. Udinsky
(technical)
Michel R. Mandel
(medical)
Facts
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is managed by the Regents of the University of California
under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which owns and funds the laboratory. The plaintiff, Dee Kotla, began working at LLNL in 1983 and later became a computer technologist whose job it was to troubleshoot and assist employees in the use of their computers, especially in the Plant Engineering Department. Her performance reviews were good. Beginning in about 1991, a manager and engineer at LLNL alleged to have harassed several women at LLNL.
One of these women, named Kimberly Norman, began complaining to the plaintiff, Dee Kotla, about this
activity. The alleged harassment included attempts to date her, unwanted sexual comments and inappropriate
touching. This harassment went on for almost two years, and finally Kimberly Norman and Dee Kotla complained to higher management at LLNL. The alleged harassment of Norman continued. She eventually left LLNL on a stress disability in February 1994. Thereafter, in December 1994, she filed a lawsuit for sexual harassment. During the course of the Norman lawsuit, the plaintiff was identified by Kimberly Norman, through her attorneys, as a potential witness in her sexual harassment case. On Dec. 16, 1996, the plaintiff was subpoenaed for a deposition by the plaintiffÆs attorneys in the Norman v.
LLNL case. LLNL counsel declined to represent her. The plaintiff was quite surprised since most of the other
employees at LLNL had been represented by LLNL counsel in their depositions. The plaintiff brought a
document in the deposition that she claimed to have prepared on her lab computer. To check the authenticity of that claim, she was asked to give up her computer password during the course of the deposition. (They called her department head who authorized her to give the password during the deposition.) When the call was made to release her password, her department head made written notes at that time that she was a hostile witness as a result of his conversation with LLNL counsel. The plaintiff felt harassed and intimated during the course of her deposition and eventually asked that the deposition be terminated so that she could obtain her own counsel. During the course of the deposition, she claims she overheard a comment by LLNL counsel to another female defense attorney representing one of the other defendants in the Norman v. LLNL case to the effect that "If Kotla knows whatÆs good for her, sheÆll keep her mouth shut." LLNL then instituted a full investigation of the plaintiffÆs alleged "outside business" and computer misuse following the request of LLNL counsel. When the plaintiff was interviewed, she explained that she did not have an outside business relationship. She had a personal friendship with this man for whom she did some work on her LLNL computer. She contended the only work she did was to convert a disk room one format (IBM) to another format on her computer so that her friend could use this. However, once the disk was put into the LLNL computer system, it remained on her computer even though she contended that she did a maximum of 10 to 15 minutes work on this matter and did it during her time at lunch or breaks. The police department and defendants contended that the plaintiff destroyed evidence by going in shortly after the investigation was started (on the evening of Dec. 18, 1996) and deleting the outside business file which
was entitled "Spectrum" from her computer. The plaintiff did not deny that she had deleted matters off her computer and contended that she had a perfect right
to do so, and that she was concerned about LLNL counsel looking into personal matters on her computer and was fearful of retaliation at that time.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. Section 998 demand of $499,000 one year before trial, increased to $950,000 on the day of trial. The defendants offered $65,000 plus benefits - possible $200,000 value.
Damages
On the evening of Feb. 20, 1997, after her termination, the plaintiff became completely distraught and suicidal. She began drinking and eventually took an overdose of medication that evening, which required her hospitalization, being placed on a ventilator, and eventually transferred to a psychiatric care facility. In August 1997, approximately six months after her termination, she obtained another job with the County of Santa Clara as a computer technologist. She continued to work at that job up until the time of the trial and within two years was earning more money at her job at Santa Clara than she had at LLNL. The plaintiff contended that there were loss of benefits, such as lifetime medical and pension benefits. The defense disputed this and contended that her benefits were either speculative or almost exactly the same at her new job. The defendants also had her examined by a psychiatrist and a psychologist, and both defense medical exams indicated that she had a long a difficult pre-existing history. The plaintiff contended that she still had some ongoing emotional distress as a result of the termination. The defense contended that she was completely back to her pre-existing state within six months of the date of termination. The economic damages were severely disputed. Both sides called economists to evaluate the loss of benefits. The plaintiff contended they were over $500,000, and the defense contended there were zero because she was doing better at her new job than she was before. The plaintiff asked for $7.5 million in non-economic damages.
Result
A new trial motion and judgment notwithstanding the verdict motion have been filed. The plaintiff will also file a motion for attorneysÆ fees and costs.
Other Information
Motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict have been filed. The plaintiff will also file a motion for attorney fees and costs.
Deliberation
seven days
Poll
9-3
Length
six weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390