Judy Galanter v. Oak Park Unified School District
Published: Mar. 2, 2004 | Result Date: Jan. 30, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC027718 Verdict – $130,066
Judge
Court
Ventura Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Craig A. Horowitz
(Horowitz & Clayton)
Defendant
Carol A. Woo
(Woo Houska LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
David N. Glaser
(medical)
David T. Fractor Ph.D.
(technical)
John T. Dunn M.D.
(medical)
Facts
In February 2000, the plaintiff Judy Galanter was hired as a part time food service bookkeeper. She earned $11.50 per hour and worked two and a half hours daily. She also had at that time other jobs in different facilities as an independent contractor nutritionist. Her goal was to become the food service director upon the retirement of her supervisor, Virginia Leigh, whose retirement had already been announced. The plaintiff began working in early March 2000 and performed her job ably. Independent witnesses testified at trial that in late April 2000 at a luncheon, the plaintiff was announced as the successor to Leigh as the food service manager. This would have meant that the plaintiff would have earned a salary in the range of $36,000 to $45,000 per year. However, the plaintiff complained to Leigh on several occasions after Leigh had received a paycheck and had stated "I feel nigger rich," Leigh, knowing that the plaintiff was Jewish, also made comments regarding Jewish people, including another employee, whose job was to count the petty cash, that "you know how those Jews are about their money." The plaintiff complained about this comment as well. Although the plaintiff was not terminated following her three-month probationary period, she received a notice of termination in late June 2000. Her internal appeal was denied.
Settlement Discussions
Following a denial of the defendant's Petition for Review before the California Supreme Court, the matter settled for an additional $125,000.
Result
The plaintiff moved for prevailing party attorney fees which was denied. The Court of Appeal reversed.
Other Information
The case proceeded through discovery and the trial was held in May 2002. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on retaliation claim, and awarded her slightly in excess of $5,000 in lost wages. The jury did not award the plaintiff any emotional distress damages. The jury could not award punitive damages because the plaintiff was suing a public entity. Thereafter, the plaintiff applied for prevailing party attorneys fees pursuant to FEHA, California Government Code Section 12965 (b). The total fees and costs expended at the time of trial, based on the plaintiff's counsel's internal billing records and cost accounts, was approximately $116,000. The trial court denied attorney fees in their entirety, arguing that he had discretion to do so because of the low verdict. The plaintiff appealed. In a unanimous decision by the Second Appellate District, Division 6, the trial court's denial of attorney fees was reversed. The appellate panel noted that the trial court abused its discretion in that there was no special circumstances in which to deny attorney fees, and that its ruling thwarted the goal of FEHA in allowing low wage earners to prosecute their claims with competent attorneys. In fact, the appellate court cited record evidence of the excellent work done by plaintiff's attorneys during the case, and concluded that the matter be remanded for the trial court's proper application of the lodestar.
Deliberation
two days
Poll
10-2 (for plaintiff on retaliation under FEHA), 9-3 (for defendant on religious discrimination and failure to hire)
Length
five days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390