Facts

Plaintiff Ana Mendoza, 36, sued her former employer, defendant Transfield Services Americas and her former immediate supervisor at Transfield, Santocruz Hernandez, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In September 2012, Mendozaspoke with Hernandez about possibly working at Transfield as a fire watch/safety attendant, and was hired that same month. Plaintiff claimed that from Sept. 24 until Oct. 24, 2012, Hernandez, who was plaintiff's crew foreman and immediate supervisor during that time, subjected her to unwanted and offensive sexual harassment. Plaintiff claimed Hernandez's harassment included making verbal comments about her physical attractiveness, demanding that she ride with him in a golf cart to work sites, alluded to plaintiff that she should have sex with him as "payback" for helping her obtain employment with Transfield, asked that she "go out" with him- despite both of them being married to other people - touched her leg and hands on one occasion without her consent, and contacted plaintiff after work, for non-work related reasons, he also made inappropriate comments. Plaintiff claimed that Hernandez conspired to have plaintiff terminated because she refused his advances.

On Oct. 24, plaintiff complained to Hernandez's superiors, and was later contacted by Kelley Cook of Transfield's Human Resources department. After speaking with Mendoza, Cook interviewed some of plaintiff's co-workers. Plaintiff contended that Cook never asked Hernandez to provide Transfield with his cell phone or to cooperate in obtaining his cell phone records from his cell phone provider. Instead, Kelley Cook concluded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain Mendoza's charges of sexual harassment against Hernandez. Transfield did suspend Hernandez for a short period of time for inappropriately contacting Mendoza by telephone during non-working hours concerning non-work related matters.

Transfield later transferred Mendoza to a different facility, where she was then terminated two weeks later, on Nov. 16, in a so-called "reduction of force." Plaintiff claimed that Transfield's Human Resources department ordered Mendoza's transfer to the Tesoro facility knowing that safety attendants in that facility were scheduled to be the first ones selected for inclusion in the reduction of force. Plaintiff's witness, Dawn Hampton, the manager of Transfield's Tesoro Refinery, declared that Transfield managers, including those in the Human Resources department, actually knew the precise staffing needs for safety managers like Mendoza at the Tesoro facility months in advance.

Mendoza's complaint asserted eleven causes of action against Transfield and Hernandez, including sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment from occurring, retaliation for opposing harassment, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and constructive discharge/wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Plaintiff also alleged that Transfield and its counsel engaged in a serial pattern of discovery misuse, and subsequently filed separate discovery motions. Plaintiffs allegations included failing to produce eight employees for deposition, following the court's orders to do so. Hampton declared that Transfield's attorneys provided to the court a half true declaration, told her to not testify, and actively engaged in witness suppression.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Transfield denied any knowledge of Hernandez's bad behavior in advance, and claimed that he was immediately suspended pending investigation. Transfield claimed that there was no basis to hold Transfield liable for failure to prevent sexual harassment.

Transfield claimed that it did a prompt and reasonable investigation, that it could not substantiate plaintiff's claims, and therefore was not liable. Transfield argued that it moved plaintiff to a different refinery, and that plaintiff was laid off due to a reduction in force, which was not motivated in any way by improper reasons. Transfield claimed that there was no basis for a finding of punitive damages.

As to the discovery motions, Transfield claimed it was not subject to sanctions since the witnesses were either not employees at the time of their notice, or even if they were, the failure of those employees to appear pursuant to court order was beyond the reach of Transfield, as those employees were no longer employees at the time of the order to appear.

Settlement Discussions

On April 1, 2014, plaintiff demanded $1,000,000 at mediation, while defendants offered $30,000. Plaintiff rejected mediator's proposal of $500,000.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed mental distress, which was resolved.

Result

The case settled for $1 million at a mandatory settlement conference one month before trial.

Other Information

On April 8, 2014, trial court denied defense summary adjudication motion in its entirety. At the same hearing, the court imposed issue and evidentiary sanctions against Transfield for serial discovery abuse, and violations of court orders to produce deponents for deposition. MEDIATOR: Lisa Krakow, of Mediation Offices of Lisa Krakow. Mandatory Settlement Conference was presided over by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Abraham Khan. FILING DATE: May 1, 2013.