Facts

Plaintiff Rebecca Hernandez, a 46-year-old district supervisor for Huntington Parole Office in South Central Los Angeles, claimed her supervisor discriminated against her and she claimed retaliatory action by the Department of Corrections for investigating the discrimination. The plaintiff was employed to district supervisor in 2002 and developed a program for parolees to come into he office daily with requirements for them to meet with people to learn about their options and get the assistance they needed. In 2005, defendant Maria Franco became temporary district administrator and supervised plaintiff. Franco believed the program plaintiff started was corrupt and instituted an investigation against plaintiff. Defendant, the Department of Corrections, proceeded with an investigation based on Franco's assertions at a pre-mediation meeting in which plaintiff was not asked to attend.

The plaintiff filed an EEOC complaint but refused to be interviewed by the EEOC so the complaint was dismissed. In October, plaintiff claimed that Franco's assistant put a urine-like substance in her office and Mark Epstein, regional administrator, transferred her to the El Monte Parole Office. She went on medical leave though before beginning work there. Investigators for the Department of Corrections went to plaintiff's home during her leave, despite plaintiff's attorney's request that they speak with her doctor first.

In June 2006, Regional Administrator Kenneth Ford signed a letter that the investigation had been completed and due cause had been found against plaintiff. She was demoted to Parole Agent II. She requested a hearing, which was held in July where the hearing officer found the charges against her could not be substantiated. The plaintiff was charged with not accepting due process and ordered to accept the letter.

The plaintiff sued the Department of Corrections, Franco, Epstein, Ford, and Landry for gender discrimination, retaliation, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Judge Kenneth Freeman dismissed the defamation claim against Ford and Esptein.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that Franco was seeking to destroy her career in order to advance her own. She contended that de facto department policy was viewed as only allowing a certain number of women to advance to upper management. She claimed Franco felt threatened and discriminated against her because of this. The plaintiff claimed the investigation was retaliatory. The plaintiff's counsel noted that the letter from Ford did not include a copy of the investigation which was required by department policy. Ford testified that he had not read the report when he wrote the letter to plaintiff. The plaintiff's counsel also noted that the charge of not accepting service of due process was not the related to this investigation but was related to an incident from May 2006.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant denied the plaintiff's allegations. The defendant argued that one woman cannot discriminate against another based on gender and that Franco was just doing her job. The defendant contended that plaintiff did not cooperate with Franco on her internal investigation as she was required.

Damages

The plaintiff asked for $6,670,000 for lost wages, medical costs, emotional distress and punitive damages.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed that she suffered from severe emotional distress and physical distress due to defendant's actions. She claimed she had migraines and an ulcer and required psychiatric care. The defendant's psychiatry expert denied that plaintiff suffered major depression and believed her stress was exhibited through physical symptoms. The expert claimed she was exaggerating her emotional distress symptoms. The defense pointed out that plaintiff's psychiatrist testified that she suffered from a number of occupation problems and believed the medication she took exacerbated her physical symptoms.

Result

The jury awarded plaintiff $859,000 which included $700,000 noneconomic damages and $159,000 economic damages. The jury found that defendant retaliated against plaintiff and Franco willfully and wantonly disregarded plaintiff's emotional distress. The jury found for the defendants on gender discrimination claim and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Other Information

The defense issued a motion for a new trial, motion for a judgment notwithstanding verdict, and a motion to reduce damage award post-trial.

Deliberation

two days

Length

14 days