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
Constructive Discharge
Retaliation/Gender Discrimination/Failure to Accommodate

Grace Perlas v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

Published: Oct. 27, 2007 | Result Date: Apr. 24, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RG04181378 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Marylon M. Boyd

Tanya R. Meyers
(Law Offices of Tanya R. Meyers)


Defendant

Thomas C. Lee


Facts

Grace Perlas was promoted from a temporary position at the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to a civil rights officer for the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). She alleged the OCR subjected her to acts of discriminatory misconduct based on gender and failed to accommodate her disability of work-related stress. Perlas also claimed executive management retaliated against her for complaining about the discriminatory treatment perpetuated by a new OCR manager hired in 2002. Perlas sued BART for employment discrimination and retaliatory termination.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended Davis cultivated an intimidating environment in which he specifically harassed plaintiff, gave her more work, and threatened to fire her for refusing to condone his discriminatory conduct. The defendant eventually terminated her after refusing to provide her proper accommodation for complaining about management's retaliation and misconduct.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended the plaintiff was laid off due to downsizing after an extended leave of absence brought about by plaintiff's alleged stress. Although plaintiff submitted a doctor's note suggesting one month away from work, she did not return to work as scheduled. In fact, her psychiatrist continually extended her return date, month by month, until 2004. Further, the defendant did not fire plaintiff in retaliation, but was compelled to eliminate her position in its legitimate effort to reduce its budget for the fiscal year.

The district contended that the reduction in force was necessitated by budget reductions due to the downturn in the Bay Area economy after the tragic events of September 11.

Damages

The plaintiff's total compensation was about $93,000 for 2004, including earnings, benefits and bonus. After her employment benefits were terminated, plaintiff could not find similar coverage and incurred $2,000 in medical expenses, not including costs for medication.

Injuries

Emotional distress.

Result

Defense.


#81595

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

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