Bernadine W. Casenas v. Fujisawa USA, Inc.
Published: Nov. 22, 1997 | Result Date: Oct. 3, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: G016713 – $0
Judge
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
Plaintiff, Bernardine Casenas began her employment with the defendant Fujisawa USA, Inc. as a professional sales representative (PSR) on Feb. 3, 1986 in Philadelphia, Pa. At her request, she was transferred to Southern California at the end of 1987. Her district manager was Jeff Brown until early 1989, when he was transferred to another district and replaced by Casey Bernson. Brown and Bernson reported to Dennis Ison, regional sales director. Under Fujisawa's evaluation system, PSRs are initially appraised by their district manager. A draft appraisal went to the regional sales director, who reviewed it in comparison to the sales performances of all PSRs in the region. The appraisal was then sent to the national sales manager for review, revision and approval, to ensure application of uniform standards nationwide. The personnel department did the final review. Merit salary increases tied to the performance evaluation ranged from 0 to 10 percent. Casenas did very well at Fujisawa, earning many bonuses and much praise. In her February 1988 appraisal of her previous year's performance, she received a "highly commendable" rating and an 8 percent merit increase. In her March 1989 appraisal, Casenas was again rated "highly commendable" and given a 7 percent increase. The latter appraisal was determined prior to March 7, 1989, by Brown, Ison and Rick Lamb, then Fujisawa's national sales manager, and reviewed by Barbara Sheiman, the company's personnel manager at the time. The sales statistics revealed Casenas achieved 105 percent of her sales goal for 1988, ranking her at about the 55th to 60th percentile among PSRs - her territory was number 60 out of 131. Her district finished 13th out of 14 districts nationally. Casenas was promoted to senior sales representative. However, Casenas was unhappy with her 1989 appraisal. On March 18, she sent a memo to Sheiman, listing some specific accomplishments which had not been mentioned, objecting to the employer's choice of words in minor criticisms, noting the overall exellence of her services and complaining about her salary increase which, at 1 percent less than the prior raise. Casenas believed falsely implied her 1988 performance was inferior to that of 1987. Ison responded to memo. After reveiwing the appraisal, he wrote to Casenas on April 7, agreeing that some of the suggested changes should be made. He told Casenas he was instructing Brown to "upgrade" the rating in one performance area and prepare an appraisal addendum stating the approved modifications. However, Ison noted, that the recalculations did not percentage of the merit increase. On April 25, the plaintiff sent Sheiman another memo (with a copy to Ison), again objecting to the appraisal criticizing Brown on a broad range of management issues and, for the first time, accusing him of sexual harassment. The plaintiff claimed that Brown made condenscending comments and derogatory remarks and attempted to discredit her character. The plaintiff also claimed that her rejection of Brown's sexual advances was the reason behind an unfair performance review evaluation. After meeting with Casenas on May 9, the next day, Sheiman and Ison questioned Brown in detail about each incident mentioned in Casenas' April 25 memo. Over the next week, they also interviewed each of the PSRs who reported to Brown, as well as a former PSRs, one who was another, recently resigned and a management level person from a related corporate enterprise. In the meantime, Casenas' appraisal was again reveiwed by Ison, Lamb and Sheiman, Quincy Williams, Fujisawa's president, also looked at it. Based on company statistical data, the executives concluded the appraisal was accurate and adequate. They further found Casenas' seven percent increase, at the very top of the merit increases recommended by Brown, did not indicate retaliation. SEE "THE RESULT" FOR CONTINUATION ***
Settlement Discussions
The settlement discussions were not disclosed.
Result
*** CONTINUATION OF FACTS: On June 9, Bernson and Ison flew from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles for a face-to-face meeting with Casenas. In the meeting, they informed the plaintiff that Brown will receive a written reprimand and warning specifying his errors and warning that any repetition may be grounds for severe discipline, including termination. This written warning was to be placed in Brown's personnel file. The reprimand included instructions to Brown not to talk about Casenas, her job status or the situation with anyone except designated management personnel, and to refrain from "initiating any contact whatsoever" with Casenas. On June 14, Casenas informed Ison in writing of her unhappiness with his suuport of Brown's evaluation of seven percent and thought she should receive a 10 percent merit increase. Ison and the plaintiff continued to exchange correspondence with Ison expressing a willingness to meet to discuss the issues, and the plaintiff wanting to keep all discussions in writing. On July 26, Ison, Bernson and Casenas spent more than five hours going over every item on Casenas' agenda which icluded discussing her appraisal and her current performance status. The only subjects discussed were concerns that Casenas had raised earlier or brought up at the time. Casenas took volumious notes, indicating among other things, Ison's and Bernson's expressions of support for her goal of becoming a sales manager. At the conclusion of the meeting, Casenas left the room, apparently without any interference by Ison or Bernson. There were no further communications until August 10, when Casenas informed Ison in writing that she was "involuntar[ily] resigning" from Fujisawa as of August 15. Ison responded, saying that they did not want the plaintiff to leave the company, but stated that the company had done all that could be done. Ison told Casenas that she had a manager committed to her development and told her she was mistaken in believing she had no opportunity for advancement at Fujisawa. The correspondence ended. After filing her administrative agency claim against Fujisawa, Casenas initiated the underlying suit for damages. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed and the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's decision.
Other Information
In publishing the opinion, the Court of Appeal stated "we publish our opinion because Fujisawa's conduct is a textbook example of how to respond appropriately to an employee's harassment complaint. We do not know what more the employer could have done to accomodate Casenas, short of ceding its managerial prerogative to her." Plaintiff's counsel reported that "the Court found the facts that it wanted to find and ignored those that would have dictated a different result." All that plaintiff sought on appeal was that summary judgment was not proper and there should have been a trial on the contested "facts." Per plaintiff, the overall appearance of the decision is that Fujisawa did everything right in response to a sexual harassment claim. Plaintiff claimed that what Fujisawa did do in the investigation in response to Casena's complaints was largely based on the declaration of the person (Dennis Ison) that Casenas felt was freezing her career aspirations. The credibility of this supervisor was a major issue. However, the Court found this was immaterial. Plaintiff's reports that the case will not be appealed since it was negotiated after the opinion came down. Casenas has waived any further appeal rights in return for a total waiver of costs form the trial and appellate levels. Prior to the appellate decision, plaintiff reports there were no offers and the Court of Appeal, during the life of the case, had dispensed with settlement conferences. In the approximate three years since the filing of this appeal, Casenas has moved on and is successful in a different company. The matter will be dismissed and costs waived.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390