Facts

Plaintiff Lauren Scricca began working for the University of California Irvine Medical Center on Jan. 28, 2008 as a Clinical Nurse IV, assigned to the Acute Rehab Unit. She reported to Gary Brentlinger, Manager of ARU. Throughout her tenure, plaintiff earned positive feedback on her performance, and achieved several promotions. Plaintiff remained in the ARU throughout her employment with UCI until her termination on March 2018.

Defendants claimed that plaintiff failed to use the stethoscope when required, yet marked that she did in patient charts.

Plaintiff alleged the reason for termination was false and pre-textual. Plaintiff alleged defendant's decision to terminate her was motivated by her hearing disability, which UCI had not fully accommodated over the years; was a source of resentment from her colleagues; and made her a target for termination after a 2017 change in the ratio of nurses to patients caused a reduction in available shifts for nurses, and a desire by UCI to reduce the number of nurses on staff.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended she has a hearing disability. Defendant initially more or less reasonably accommodated her disability within the ARU. Except for a small period of time, defendant took no steps to accommodate plaintiff in any other department, preventing her from "floating" to other units when scheduled to do so. In 2017, as a cost cutting measure, UCI lowered its nurse to patient ratio requirement, reducing the number of shifts available to nurses. All nurses were then required to float on a regular basis. For the ARU, the nurses, who were concerned about floating were given the option to be "called out" instead, on a rotating basis. Plaintiff wanted to float rather than be called out, but couldn't because of the lack of accommodations in other units. Instead of putting in place accommodations to allow her to float, Brentlinger exempted plaintiff from either floating or being called off, resulting in giving her a full shift at the expense of the other nurses. Plaintiff expressly did not want to be exempt in this way, yet Brentlinger informed the other nurses that plaintiff would be treated differently. This caused resentment by the other nurses, motivating some to claim, for the first time in eight years, that they never saw her with a stethoscope. Brentlinger, who was actively taking steps to reduce his staff, saw an opportunity to terminate plaintiff by claiming "falsification of records" for reporting lung health on medical charts without using her stethoscope. However, plaintiff used a special expensive stethoscope that allowed her to hear when listening to patients lungs. This stethoscope could not be carried around the neck, nor kept laying around. Plaintiff kept it in her locker and in her coat pocket, and used it only when seeing patients one on one behind closed curtains. As a result, nurses did not notice a stethoscope on her person. Nevertheless, defendant failed to take this into account. Rather than properly investigate, UCI sought only supportive evidence of its position, and validated that decision at every level of review until plaintiff's termination was made final.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defense claimed that plaintiff had always been reasonably accommodated; that "floating" was not an essential function of her job; and that UCI terminated her for good cause, and not for discriminatory reasons. Defense claimed that it properly investigated the claim of "falsification of records" and found support for that finding in plaintiff statements made to a nurse advisor, in anonymous peer reviews, and in written accounts given by six other nurses stating, among other things, that they did not remember ever seeing plaintiff use a stethoscope. Other UCI managers re-reviewed the matter at two additional levels of review following plaintiff's filing of a grievance. The nurse union represented plaintiff at every level of review. After examination of the records, defendant's upper management also upheld the findings of falsification of records, and the decision to terminate. Defendants denied any discrimination or failure to accommodate.

Specials in Evidence

Loe: $298,097 Future Loe: $513,845

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed $250,000 in emotional distress damages and $75,000 in future emotional distress damages.

Result

The jury reached a verdict for plaintiff for $1,136,942 on various causes of action including failure to reasonably accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process. The jury did not find liability on claims of retaliation or age discrimination.

Deliberation

2.5 hours

Length

nine days