Facts

Plaintiff Charles Hughes, age 42, was a Correctional Lieutenant for the State of California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") at the California State Prison in Lancaster, California, where he had worked for 11 years.

The CDCR brought three disciplinary or Adverse Employment Actions (AAs) against Hughes: a 10-day suspension (AA-1); a termination (AA-2), and a second termination (AA-3).

Plaintiff contended that these AAs were retaliatory under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) because he engaged in five alleged protected activities: (1) telling a newspaper reporter the CDCR practices racial segregation of inmates and that CDCR attorneys misrepresented the extent of that segregation in arguing before the United States Supreme Court; (2) telling the warden about the newspaper interview; (3) testifying on Feb. 8, 2005, before a California State Senate Committee regarding inmate segregation; (4) complaining about a rodent and target display on the warden's door; and (5) complaining about a comedy show held on May 4, 2005 at the California State Prison Los Angeles County.

After trial on July 8, 2011, the jury found that the Testimony and Comedy Complaint were considered protected activities, and that terminations AA-2 and AA-3 were retaliatory acts by the CDCR.

The civil action went to trial in May 2011 and resulted in a 5-week jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court. The court had previously granted summary adjudication as to all of the claims except for the retaliation claim. The retaliation claim proceeded to trial.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Hughes contended that he was a victim of wrongful termination. Hughes' protected activities stemmed from the case of Garrison S. Johnson v. State of California, which was pending before the United States Supreme Court in 2004.

Specifically, in Nov. 2004, during oral argument before the High Court, the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) represented that the Dept. does not racially segregate inmates beyond the first 60 days when inmates are housed in reception centers. Based on his lengthy career working at CSP-LAC as both an officer and a supervisor, Hughes claimed he knew that inmates were racially segregated beyond the reception centers.

Hughes raised this issue during an interview with the Riverside Press-Enterprise in December 2004. During the interview, Hughes disclosed CDCR's alleged unwritten blanket policy of racially segregating inmates beyond the reception centers. Hughes was quoted as saying: "We segregate permanently and use race for job placement and everything, and for them to say otherwise is an absolute lie. And for them to lie to the Supreme Court is appalling." The Press-Enterprise article was published on Jan. 19, 2005 and included interviews with numerous officials who were familiar with the case.

In Feb. 2005, Hughes testified at a California Senate Hearing conducted by Senator Gloria Romero about the true nature of racial segregation of inmates within CSP-LAC. In May 2005, Hughes was notified by a correctional officer that there was a comedy performance rife with racial epithets and harassing behavior that took place at CSP-LAC on May 4, 2005. The correctional officer expressed concern that because Warden Charles Harrison was present throughout the entire performance, a complaint might lead to a retaliatory response. Hughes filed a complaint regarding the comedy show through the chain of command to the CDCR Secretary, Roderick Hickman. As a result of the complaint, the CDCR Office of Civil Rights initiated an investigation into the comedy show.

Beginning in June 2005, the CDCR imposed the first of three rapidly succeeding adverse actions. In Oct. 2005, the CDCR terminated Hughes based on allegations that he had intentionally prevented medical treatment to an inmate who had been the victim of an assault in his cell. In Dec. 2005, the CDCR terminated Hughes a second time based on allegations that Hughes used profanity in the workplace and made threats to fellow officers. Hughes adamantly denied the allegations in all three adverse actions and appealed the adverse actions to the State Personnel Board (SPB).

Additionally, Hughes filed a lawsuit alleging that his discharge was retaliatory and in response to his protected disclosures and complaints, actions that are protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

In a four year appeal process before the SPB, plaintiff prevailed on his appeals of the first termination. The appeal as to the second termination was dismissed based on the merits and on the basis of the jurisdictional defect of terminating an already terminated employee. Plaintiff was reinstated to his position of Correctional Lieutenant in 2009.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued that the Dept. suspended plaintiff from his job for ten days and terminated him two times because the extensive investigations reflected that plaintiff had engaged in misconduct. The Dept. also argued that it started its investigations into plaintiff's misconduct before any of plaintiff's complaints. Additionally, the Dept.'s decision makers did not have any knowledge of plaintiff's complaints at the times that they made their respective decisions.

The Dept. contended that plaintiff had not been injured emotionally or physically. As to back-pay, the Dept. countered that the back-pay numbers that plaintiff sought due to a separate administrative tribunal ordering the plaintiff back to work at the Dept. Additionally, the Dept.'s economist countered the plaintiff's economist's numbers relation to additional damages.

Result

The jury awarded plaintiff $1.67 million, which consisted of $420,000 in back-pay, $1,000,000 in past emotional distress, and $250,000 in future emotional distress. Further, plaintiff was awarded attorney fees as the prevailing party in a FEHA action.

Deliberation

one week

Poll

9-3

Length

four weeks