This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Age Discrimination

Barbara Myers v. State of California, Department of Transportation, et al.

Published: Apr. 20, 1996 | Result Date: Feb. 16, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 118683 Verdict –  $477,720

Judge

Jack H. Halpin

Court

Shasta Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gary G. Gibson


Defendant

James E. Livesey

Suzanne Jacobs


Experts

Plaintiff

Ralph Andrews
(technical)

Joseph Link
(medical)

Ray Carlson
(medical)

Jack Tanenbaum
(technical)

Ann O'Sullivan
(technical)

Defendant

Robert M. Bittle
(medical)

Robert T. Levine
(medical)

Dawn Hill
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiff, Barbara Myers, a 63-year-old accounting technician, worked a total of 22 years off and on with the defendant, State of California. She had worked in the defendant's, Department of Transportation's ("CalTrans"), accounting office in Redding since 1986. The plaintiff was given a new supervisor in September of 1991. The plaintiff alleged that almost immediately she was accused of coming to work late, taking long breaks and falling asleep at her desk. She alleged that when she corrected these problems she was then accused of not completing her work in a timely manner and when this was proven to be inaccurate she was accused of making too many errors. In the 18 months that she had worked for her previous supervisor, between January of 1990 and August of 1991, she had received no discipline or complaints. (Her previous supervisor testified that she was not late for work, that she did not sleep on the job, that she took the appropriate breaks, that she was productive and that she did not make any more mistakes than the other persons in the office). In May of 1992, the plaintiff filed an age harassment/discrimination complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH"). Her employer, the defendant CalTrans, was advised of the complaint in June of 1992. Within a week of being advised of the complaint, the plaintiff's job evaluation (completed a week earlier) was changed and she was downgraded in her evaluation. Later in June of 1992, the plaintiff was threatened with termination if she did not accept a transfer from the office and agree to dismiss her DFEH claim. The plaintiff then filed a retaliation claim with the DFEH. In August of 1992, she was transferred out of the office to the warehouse and then went on an 8 month stress leave. She returned to work 4 hours a day and was transferred to the accounting office. CalTrans then went through a consolidation whereby all of the accounting procedures were transferred to the CalTrans main office in Sacramento. All of the employees in CalTran's Redding accounting office were promised transfer to another department in Redding so that they would not have to move to Sacramento. CalTrans found jobs for all of the sixteen employees (except for three who volunteered to move to Sacramento). However, CalTrans did not find the plaintiff a job in Redding although she wanted to stay in the city. She was the only employee who was involuntary transferred to Sacramento. She is still employed in the Sacramento CalTrans office but is on a restriction of 6 hours a day due to her mental distress. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on age harassment and discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $500,000 which was reduced to $300,000. The defendants offered $15,000, with an indication they may increase it to $30,000.

Injuries

The plaintiff alleged that she sustained mental distress requiring period of psychological counseling as a result of the defendant's conduct.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately two years and four months after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held in December, 1994 before Judge Jack Halpin which did not resolve the matter. Per the defendants, the jury panel was small, 27% of the pool was male, 11 of the jury members were women (most over 40 years of age) and no one on the jury had any relevant supervisory experience.

Deliberation

3 hours

Poll

11-1

Length

9 days


#113824

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390