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
FEHA

Colleen Wrysinski v. Agilent Technologies Inc.

Published: Nov. 9, 2004 | Result Date: Jun. 17, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SCV13516 Verdict –  $4,817,500

Judge

James Garbolino

Court

Placer Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Elisa W. Ungerman


Defendant

Henry D. Lederman

Harold J. Wulfsberg
(Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Charles R. Mahla Ph.D.
(technical)

Elizabeth Ison
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Colleen Wrysinski, 41, was hired as a project manager for defendant Agilent Technologies Inc. Six months after she began, she told her manager that she was pregnant and planned to take leave from June 2001 to January 2002. Two months later, her manager made a decision not to confront perceived performance issues because she was pregnant and going on leave. In August 2001, defendant announced a layoff affecting 4,000 employees. The plaintiff was terminated in September 2001.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $1 million plus attorney fees. The defendant's offer was $105,000.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed past and future lost wages of $287,365 and future lost earnings of $558,815. She also claimed pain and suffering and emotional distress. The plaintiff sought punitive damages. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had gone on to a new career as a real estate agent, whereby her earning capacity at her new career would eventually be greater than that of a project manager. The defendant contended it was entitled to an offset/credit for the increased earnings until the date of her retirement, thus avoiding damages all together. This argument was presented in closing but failed to convince the jury. The defendant had no economic experts, but it did argue that plaintiff's economic expert made incorrect assumptions.

Result

The jury found for the plaintiff on all claims except retaliation. It awarded her $4,817,500 ($3,854,320 punitive damages; $117,000 pain and suffering and emotional distress; $287,365 lost earnings; $558,815 lost earning potential).

Other Information

The plaintiff filed a motion to augment the compensatory damages under the Family Medical Leave Act. The court awarded $406,372. The plaintiff will be seeking attorney fees. The defendant will be filing motions for remittitur and new trial. It also indicated its plans to appeal the judgment.

Deliberation

two days

Poll

varied as to the causes of action

Length

five weeks


#116763

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

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