Confidential
Settlement – $1,000,000Judge
Court
Sacramento Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Robert M. Bittle
(medical)
Defendant
Robert Record
(medical)
Facts
In October 1995, the plaintiff was hired as the day shift licensed vocational nurse (LVN) for the defendant company that provides medical services at county jails. The plaintiff alleged that, two months later, in December, the defendant program manager began making unwelcomed statements of a sexual nature to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff perceived as offensive. The initial statement, "I'm going to bend you over the counter and f - - - you like an inmate" was witnessed by a co-employee. At the suggestion of a co-worker, the plaintiff began writing notes of offensive statements made by the program manager and/or incidents of offensive touching. The defendant company maintained a written sexual harassment policy, indicating that such conduct would not be tolerated. Employees were to report any complaints of harassment to their supervisor or to the vice president of the company. In January 1996, a physician's assistant (PA) from another county worked for a few evenings at the Yolo County jail, covering the regular PA who was on vacation. In a telephone call preceding his evening assignment at Yolo, the PA had a conversation with defendant program manager during which the program manager made a statement of a sexual nature about another LVN at Yolo. That same evening, the PA engaged in a conversation with two LVNs, who informed him of what they considered inappropriate statements and touching. One told the PA about the program manager's statements to plaintiff. The next evening, the PA had a similar conversation with CFMG's part time LCSW, who told him that the defendant inappropriately touched her. The defendant was known to be a "touchy-feely" person, a term he used to describe himself. The PA alleged that defendant VP advised her of the defendant program manager's statement to him, as well as his conversations with the LVN's and LCSW. He also informed her he provided the employees with the defendant's harassment policy and complaint form, which she felt was appropriate. On Feb. 7, 1996, another female LVN walked off her job after a heated confrontation with the defendant. She later wrote to letters to the lieutenant in charge, complaining of the defendant's professionalism and his management style. The second letter was brought to the attention of the lieutenant's supervisor, the facility captain, who called the defendant VP and advised her that he was hearing negative things about the medical department, primarily from Yolo County staff, and he urged her to conduct an investigation. Additionally, the LVN who quit on February 7, claims he called defendant VP the day after she walked out and lodged complaints about defendant. Defendant VP claimed she did not speak to this LVN until mid-February, and that the LVN mentioned that she was sexually harassed by defendant but only at the end of the conversation, and almost as if in passing. * FOR CONTINUATION
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $100,000. The defendants company and VP made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $5,000, initially, later raised to $12,600.
Specials in Evidence
$16,000 $51,500 $25,000 $14,000
Damages
*** The defendant contended the plaintiff defamed him with his allegations of statements made by defendant which plaintiff knew were false, and that plaintiff wrongfully interfered with defendant's employment contract with defendant company resulting in his termination. The defendant denied making offensive statements to plaintiff or making any offensive touchings, sexual or otherwise, of plaintiff. The defendant contended that he was merely a friendly individual. Defendants VP and defendant company claimed plaintiff failed to submit timely complaints of harassment by defendant, and contended that defendant company had taken all reasonable steps to provide a harassment free atmosphere for all employees. They further contended that when notified by the PA that defendant had said inappropriate statements to employees and/or was touching employees, defendant VP counseled defendant on his behavior and threatened to fire him if he continued with such behavior; that defendant VP acted promptly in response to plaintiff's February 27 phone call by immediately investigating his allegations and terminating defendant within a month thereafter; that defendant was terminated because he was a poor manager and not because he had sexually harassed plaintiff; that plaintiff was not terminated in response to filing his sexual harassment complaints, but because plaintiff abandoned his job, would not communicate with defendant VP and/or defendant company about his intentions, and failed to provide a doctor's note to verify his absence. They also contended that if plaintiff had informed defendant VP of his stress-related disability, she would have done anything to help him; that she did not give plaintiff his job back after he filed his work compensation claim because plaintiff did not ask for his job back; and that defendant VP did nothing to have plaintiff's worker's compensation benefits denied. The defendants also claimed that plaintiff had planned to filed this litigation as early as 1995, that he obtained coaching from unnamed sources submitting his claims of harassment, and that plaintiff either fabricated or embellished his complaints of sexual harassment. They further claimed that plaintiff advised defendant VP that he would not cooperate with her investigation, and that plaintiff's attorney was obstructive and interfered with defendant VP during her interview of plaintiff.
Injuries
** On March 26, the VP gave defendant program manager written notice that she had completed her investigation of plaintiff's sexual harassment claims, substantiated some of the complaints and that he was terminated. The defendant was initially replaced by an interim manager, then a replacement. The plaintiff continued working, but claimed he had difficulties with the interim manager. The plaintiff sought medical treatment on April 12, at which time his doctor took him off work due to depression and anxiety, and prescribed medication. On April 14, plaintiff verbally advised the new manager of his doctor taking him off work for stress, that he'd be off work for about a week, and that he wanted to file a work injury claim. On April 15, defendant VP sent plaintiff a letter, advising him he needed to provide her with a doctor's note verifying his disability because he was going to be off work over seven days. She also provided him with a worker's compensation injury claim form. On April 16, plaintiff's doctor's staff contacted the VP and requested the name of CFMG's worker's compensation insurance carrier. The plaintiff alleged that she refused to provide that information claiming she had no knowledge of any work injury claim. The defendant claimed that she was not asked for the name of the carrier, but for a claim number or a claim form. On April 19, plaintiff advised his new manager that he would be off work until May 15. On April 26, defendant VP sent plaintiff a second letter providing him a request for leave form if he wished a medical leave of absence, advised him she had not received his work injury claim, and advised him to provide her with a doctor's note by May 3, or his job could be in jeopardy. The plaintiff did not respond. On May 7, the VP sent plaintiff a letter advising him that since she had not provided her with a doctor's note as he had requested, it appeared he had abandoned his job and he was terminated. She provided him a check for any leave time on his account. On May 13, plaintiff's worker's compensation attorney mailed plaintiff's work injury claim and a request for the name of its insurance carrier to CFMG. On June 20, defendant VP executed a declaration claiming that neither she, or any company representative, had any knowledge of any work injury claim by plaintiff prior to May 7. The plaintiff filed this action based on sexual harassment, retaliation and assault and battery theories of recovery. The program manager filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff alleging defamation and intentional interference with economic relationship. CONTENTIONS: The plaintiff contended defendant sexually harassed him with inappropriate, offensive and unwelcome statements and touchings of a sexual nature, which created a hostile environment; that the program manager was a managing agent of defendant company; that defendant's conduct constituted assault and battery against plaintiff; that defendant company had prior knowledge of defendant's propensity to harass employees and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure plaintiff a hostile free environment; that defendant VP and defendant company retaliated against him for filing his complaints of sexual harassment by terminating plaintiff and submitting a false declaration to have his worker's compensation benefits denied; and that defendant and defendant company wrongfully terminated plaintiff in breach of contract and in violation of public policy. *** FOR CONTINUATION
Other Information
The verdict was reached after an 18-day trial. Trial resulted in a plaintiff verdict for $337,000 against all defendants on the claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination in breach of contract, and assault and battery. The jury also found in favor of cross-defendant on the cross-complaint. The jury also found that the program manager was a managing agent of defendant company and that defendants' conduct was malicious and/or oppressive. On the morning the punitive phase was to begin, defendant company agreed to pay plaintiff $1 million for all claims of compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees, one-half to be paid within 30 days and the balance within six months, with interest. Dr. Robert Bittle testified that plaintiff sustained a post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depression disorder as a result of the conduct of defendant, which required medication and pyschotherapy. Further, that he had been temporarily disabled for two years and would likely not be able to return to work for six months to a year. Dr. Robert Record testified that plaintiff sustained a major depression disorder due to defendant's conduct but that plaintiff's difficulties since August 1996 were due to the litigation and not his work injury. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: Defendant program manager filed no motions for new trial or appeal. In addition to the settlement, plaintiff has an enforceable judgment of $185,000 against the program manager.
Poll
12-0 (sexual harassment and cross-complaint), 11-1 and 10-2 (malice and oppresive conduct)
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390