This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Retaliation
Gender Discrimination

Robin Scott King v. Stanford University

Published: Jun. 29, 2004 | Result Date: Apr. 9, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CV804693 Verdict –  $1,015,410

Judge

Randall Schneider

Richard C. Turrone

Court

Santa Clara Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert H. Bohn JR.


Defendant

Peter Nohle

Roberta S. Hayashi


Experts

Plaintiff

Jan Duffy
(technical)

Thaddeus John Whalen
(technical)

Diana S. Everstine
(medical)

Defendant

Phillip McLeod
(technical)

Kevin Sweeney
(technical)

Margo Leahy
(medical)

Facts

Plaintiff Robin King worked as a research technician at defendant Stanford University. During her employment, the plaintiff dated a co-worker. The relationship ended in 1990, but both of them continued to work for the defendant. In 1995, the plaintiff complained to supervisors that she needed protection from her ex-boyfriend. The defendant established a work schedule so that both the plaintiff and her ex-boyfriend could continue to use the laboratory. The plaintiff claimed that the schedule did not accommodate her needs. In 2001, the plaintiff allegedly lost her temper during a meeting and was required to participate in anger management training as a condition of employment. Within days, the plaintiff resigned and took a job at another company, which required her to continue using the defendant's laboratory. The defendant insisted that the plaintiff agree to certain conditions, including the anger management training in order to use the laboratory. The plaintiff allegedly became depressed and was laid off from her new job in early 2002.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed that she suffered depression that required therapy and medication.

Deliberation

nine hours

Poll

12-0 (intentional interference with contractual relation), 12-0 (no intentional infliction of emotional distress); 10-2 (punitive damages)

Length

three weeks


#81143

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390