Facts

Claimant Sherry Adams, a 56-year-old African-American woman, worked for defendant Access Services, a quasi-government agency that provides transportation services to individuals with disabilities, as its training coordinator. At the relevant times, Faye Moseley (also an African-American female) was Access' Director of Human Resources. Over time, Adams began to believe that HR Director Moseley was engaging in discriminatory employment practices, including favoring of African-Americans and disadvantaging others, including specifically Hispanics and Asians. Among other things, Adams believed that Moseley was making preferential hiring, promotion and pay decisions in favor of African-Americans, often including those with whom Moseley or her husband had a pre-existing relationship. According to Adams, she raised concerns about these unlawful employment practices both directly to Moseley and internally within Access. Moseley denied this. Eventually, on June 27, 2017, Moseley approached Adams at Adams' cubicle and a dispute ensued. According to Moseley, she was simply asking Adams to do a requirement of Adams' job. The details were disputed, but multiple witnesses confirmed that Adams either yelled or raised her voice at Moseley, including loudly telling Moseley to leave her alone or she would call the police on Moseley. According to Moseley, Adams' behavior was insubordinate, in violation of Access policies, and justified Adams' immediate termination. After this incident, Adams, and two other Access employees, lodged a formal EEO complaint with Access alleging harassing, discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct by Moseley.
Access retained an outside investigator who conducted a multi-month investigation into these complaints against Moseley. According to Access, the investigation did not substantiate the EEO allegations. However, Moseley departed Access soon after the investigation concluded. Around the same time that Moseley departed Access, Adams was placed on a Final Warning regarding her outburst at Moseley. Adams was warned directly at this time that any further behavior of a similar nature or similar policy violation would result in her immediate termination. According to Access, though Adams was terminable for the June 27th outburst, Access gave Adams' a second chance by the Final Warning.
About two months after Adams was placed on Final Warning, and two months after Moseley had left Access, Adams' new supervisor (Alvina Narayan) alleged that Adams had a similar outburst in a meeting with Narayan where, according to Narayan, Adams was inappropriate, unprofessional and threatening to Narayan. Access terminated Adams' employment at that time, claiming that she engaged in a similar offensive outburst to another supervisor while on a Final Warning for essentially the same behavior.
Following her termination, Adams obtained other jobs but ultimately chose to change careers and leave the corporate workplace setting. She chose instead to work as a teacher with young kids, a job she enjoys to this day.

CLAIMANT'S CONTENTIONS: Adams contended that the Final Warning and termination were retaliatory and that the true reason for them was that she reported Moseley's discriminatory behavior. According to Adams, Moseley acted as a "Cat's Paw" and pushed for Adams to be terminated for the June 27, 2017 incident. Thus, the Final Warning was retaliatory tainted by Moseley's retaliatory animus. Adams alleged that the termination, itself, was also retaliatory but that even if it were not, the Final Warning was and the decision-maker on her termination admitted that the Final Warning and the second event were both required to terminate. Thus, even if the termination decision itself based on the second incident was wholly legitimate and non-retaliatory, the termination was still unlawful because it was tainted by, and influenced by, the underlying retaliatory Final Warning.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS: Access alleged that Adams twice violated basic workplace behavior rules and this, alone, is why she was terminated. Access pointed out that the ultimate decision-maker on both the Final Warning and the termination was Access' CEO Andre Colaiace. Adams admitted that Colaiace had always treated her well and Colaiace testified that he could have terminated Adams over the Final Warning event, but did not because he liked her, valued her and wanted to give her another chance.

Settlement Discussions

Adams repeatedly sought mediation. Access initially agreed to mediate, but then declined to do so indicating it would simply arbitrate instead. Access never made a single offer to settle the case.

Damages

Emotional distress, lost earnings and pension benefits

Injuries

Adams did not receive any psychological care or treatment. However, forensic psychologist Anthony Reading, Ph.D. diagnosed her with anxiety and depression, but also acknowledge that Adams' was currently doing well and largely in remission after she decided to change careers and teach young kids.

Result

The arbitrator found that Access retaliated in violation of the FEHA and failed to prevent retaliation. The arbitrator awarded damages of $369,924.92 consisting of $96,668 in lost earnings, $136,089 in lost pension benefits, $17,167.92 in pre-judgment interest and $120,000 in emotional distress. The arbitrator also awarded $842,675 in statutory attorney's fees plus $82,114.77 in costs. The total award was $1,294,714.60

Other Information

LASC Case No. 18STCCV0439

Length

8 days of arbitration hearings