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
Wrongful Termination
Retaliation

Edward Norwood v. Stanford University, Lee Lyon

Published: May 24, 2005 | Result Date: Feb. 25, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: C032424 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Ronald M. Whyte

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Johnnie L. Taylor


Defendant

Michael T. Lucey
(Gordon & Rees LLP)

Michael A. Laurenson
(Gordon & Rees LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Kenneth I. Gottlieb
(medical)

Marco Acosta
(technical)

Phillip H. Allman III, Ph.D.
(technical)

Defendant

Jay S. Finkelman
(technical)

Mark S. Lipian
(medical)

Facts

Edward Norwood, a 49-year-old African-American, was manager of the shipping and receiving department of Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). He was terminated on March 19, 2002, after working for the SLAC for 20 years. About one year beforehand, a co-worker had been promoted instead of Norwood to a newly-created position that subsumed Norwood's supervisory responsibilities. Norwood's supervisory responsibilities were taken away, although he was not given a pay reduction. Norwood filed a grievance with Stanford, alleging that he was denied the promotion because of his race. In the Fall of 2001, Norwood filed a claim with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), alleging discrimination and retaliation. He also asserted that SLAC violated federal hazardous materials laws by placing a non-trained employee in charge of Hazmat employees. DFEH meditation failed, and Norwood returned to work.

Injuries

Norwood claimed emotional distress and resulting high blood pressure as a result of his termination. The defense claimed that Norwood could have worked following his termination, but that he had not attempted to find other employment. Norwood did not dispute this claim. The defense also disputed the cause of Norwood's high blood pressure.

Deliberation

two hours

Length

11 days


#116495

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

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