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

Marc Astor v. Rent-A-Center Inc.

Published: Nov. 19, 2005 | Result Date: Aug. 5, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 03AS04864 Verdict –  $1,619,000

Judge

Lloyd A. Phillips Jr.

Court

Sacramento Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Alan B. Exelrod

Kenneth J. Sugarman
(California Department of Justice)


Defendant

Katy A. Bolls

Richard R. Gray


Experts

Plaintiff

Margo Rich Ogus Ph.D.
(technical)

Defendant

Mark A. Cohen
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Marc Astor was a market manager for defendant Rent-A-Center, a nationwide company that rents
electronics and furniture. The plaintiff worked for the defendant for 13 years.
The plaintiff alleged that beginning in the late 1990s, the defendant's senior management personnel insisted that
he go with them to strip bars where they conducted business after visiting stores in the Sacramento area. The
plaintiff further alleged that his immediate manager made highly inappropriate comments about female
employees, showed inappropriate pictures of a woman that he said he was dating, and sent inappropriate
emails to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that when the plaintiff indicated his reluctance to be around this
behavior, his manager told him that his reluctance was a career limiting move. Further, in January 2003, the
plaintiff objected to the way his manager was proposing to handle employee complaints. The plaintiff contends
that his manager was extremely upset and several months later made false allegations about the need for
improvement in the plaintiff's performance.

In May 2003, the plaintiff made a formal complaint of sexual harassment to senior management. The plaintiff's
manager was terminated pursuant to an investigation. The plaintiff contends that he was then denied an
opportunity to be considered for a promotion within several weeks after his complaint.
In June 2003, the plaintiff wrote a memo expressing his dissatisfaction with the Open Door policy of his
company. According to the defense, the plaintiff's memo, faxed to the company's corporate office, expressed his
refusal to support and recommend the use of the company's Open Door policy. The plaintiff was terminated.

The plaintiff contended that his termination was in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment and in
violation of FEHA. He also contended that the failure to promote him was in retaliation for complaining about
harassment and a violation of FEHA. He claimed that he was sexually harassed by the defendant's
management. Finally, he claimed that the defendant failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment
from occurring.
The defendant contended that the behavior of the plaintiff's manager was non-actionable, locker room type
behavior, which had largely ended in the last year of the plaintiff's employment because of policies and training
the defendant implemented after entering into a Consent Decree (pursuant to which it paid $47,000,000 to a
class of women employees) in order to settle a nationwide sex discrimination class action. Further, the
defendant contended that it acted quickly when it investigated the plaintiff's complaint and terminated the
plaintiff's manager.
As to the plaintiff's termination, the defendant contended that it had no retaliatory motive. The defendant
contended that under the terms of the Consent Decree, managers and supervisors such as the plaintiff were
required to support the company's harassment and discrimination policies and report any violations of such
policies. The defendant further contended that as a manager responsible for overseeing several stores, the
plaintiff's stated refusal to support the company's Open Door policy could not be tolerated and the plaintiff was
terminated solely for that reason.

Result

The plaintiff was awarded $369,000 in economic damages, $250,000 in non-economic damages, and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. The defendant's motion for new trial was denied. The defendant has appealed. The plaintiff's attorney's fee motion has been submitted to the Court.

Deliberation

seven hours

Length

13 days


#116840

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

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