Deborah George v. The Nadel Partnership, et al.
Published: May 2, 1998 | Result Date: Dec. 29, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC040063 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Santa Monica
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Louis R. Miller III
(Miller Barondess LLP)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Michael G. Kaplan
(technical)
Michael Dishon
(medical)
Enid Zaslow
(medical)
Sara Feldman Schorrig
(medical)
Defendant
James R. High
(medical)
Jules H. Kamin
(technical)
Edward L. Bennett M.A.
(technical)
Greg Nelson
(technical)
Judith Armstrong
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Deborah George, was hired by defendant architectural company in 1986 as a marketing assistant and, by 1991, was promoted to the position of Director of Marketing. In late 1989, the plaintiff began sexual relationship with the defendant owner and president of the company. In early 1992, the plaintiff informed the defendant that she wanted to date other men and to curtail the relationship. Nevertheless, over the next three years, the plaintiff and the defendant had approximately two or three consensual sexual encounters. Prior to curtailing the relationship, the plaintiff drafted, and the defendant signed, secret employment agreements purportedly guaranteeing her, among other things, a minimum bonus and salary commensurate with that of other high level personnel, regardless of her performance. Over the next two years, the company paid the plaintiff less than the stated minimum bonus and less than the average salary of personnel with whom she was to be compared. In 1994, after discovering the salary discrepancy, the plaintiff complained and received a supplemental payment of nearly $27,000 following an analysis of the average base pay compensation of comparable employees. The plaintiff was terminated in February 1995 for insubordination after she repeatedly threatened to sue the defendants regarding failure to receive her contractually guaranteed bonus. The plaintiff brought this wrongful termination action against the defendant based on sexual harassment and breach of contract theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $875,000, reduced to $750,000 during trial. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $201,000, increased to $400,000 during trial. Per plaintiff, the judge recommended settlement at $500,000 which plaintiff rejected.
Specials in Evidence
$10,000 - $15,000 (for psychotherapy) $1.8 million
Damages
The plaintiff sought $1.8 million in lost income, an unspecified amount for emotional distress, and punitive damages from both the individual and corporate defendants.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years after the case was filed. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference was held on Oct. 24, 1997, before Judge Richard G. Harris, resulting in no settlement. The defendant reported that past, undisclosed memos chronicling the plaintiff's poor performance were introduced, over objection as "secret files" pursuant to the business record and past recollection recorded hearsay exceptions. In addition, telephone answering machine tapes reflecting romantic messages from the defendant were introduced, allegedly to show harassment, but according to defendant, they also suggested the plaintiff had been setting up the defendant for several years by keeping five years of tapes. The defendant also reported that the plaintiff's expert psychiatrist was impeached by her own professional writings and articles as to causation, credibility and future medical care for the plaintiff. POST-TRIAL MOTIONS: The defendant filed a cost bill of $121,000 pursuant to C.C.P. º998.
Deliberation
4¾ hours
Poll
12-0
Length
60 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390