Facts

These are facts according to plaintiff's counsel:

On Oct. 4, 2004, plaintiff Wynonna Harris was hired by defendant city of Santa Monica Big Blue Bus as a motor coach operator trainee. After successfully completing the training program, on Nov. 14, 2004, the plaintiff was promoted to motor coach operator part time. The plaintiff was to receive a performance evaluation every three months. The first and only evaluation that plaintiff received was on March 1, 2005. During the evaluation meeting, the plaintiff only received positive feedback. There were no comments about the plaintiff's performance and at the end of the report, it was indicated, "Keep up the great job!"

On April 26, 2005, the plaintiff asked the person in charge of scheduling for a late run because she had to report to juvenile court with her minor daughter on April 27. The plaintiff was scheduled to report to work at 5 p.m. on April 27.

On April 27, at 8:30 a.m., the plaintiff and her minor daughter reported to Inglewood Juvenile Court for a hearing. At approximately 2 to 2:30 p.m., the plaintiff contacted the dispatch office to advise that she was still in court and had not seen the judge. The plaintiff further indicated that there was a possibility that she would not make it to sign in on time. The dispatch officer replied that plaintiff was not due to sign in until 5 p.m. and that she still had time to call her back. However, as a result of the events that took place in court that day, the judge indicated that plaintiff's daughter was being charged with a felony and ordered her daughter to register with a probationary officer. The plaintiff was under stress and forgot to call the dispatch office back. The plaintiff left court that day around 4-4:30 p.m. After court, the plaintiff and her daughter drove to the probationary department.

On May 3, when the plaintiff reported to work, she was instructed to go to the Transit Services Manager's office. The Transit Services Manager indicated to plaintiff the reason he wanted to talk to her was because she did not report to work on April 27, after court. The plaintiff indicated to him that she had attended court that morning and that she called the dispatch office to inform them that she was still in court and had not seen the judge so that the dispatch officer could find coverage for her in case she did not make it. The dispatch office was in charge of finding coverage for drivers that could not report to work. The plaintiff called the dispatch office to give them enough notice so that they could have someone on standby just in case the plaintiff did not make it. The plaintiff also provided the Transit Services Manager with confirmation from the court indicating that she was in fact in court on April 27. During that meeting, the Transit Services Manager never indicated to plaintiff that she was being considered for termination.

A few days after the plaintiff's meeting with the Transit Services Manager, in the hallway of the dispatch area, one of plaintiff's supervisors while with the Transit Services Manager indicated to plaintiff that her shirttail was not tucked in. The plaintiff told her supervisor that she was expecting. The supervisor responded by saying, "Wow, how far along are you?" and "What are you going to do?" The plaintiff was shocked and did not know how to respond. The supervisor then asked the plaintiff to obtain a note from her doctor indicating that it was safe for her to drive the bus.

On May 12, the plaintiff obtained a doctor's note indicating that plaintiff had been under their care for her pregnancy and that "it was okay for her to drive at work. No heavy lifting or strenuous physical labor."

On May 16, the plaintiff saw her supervisor speaking to the Transit Services Manager at the dispatch waiting area. The plaintiff walked up to her supervisor and the Transit Services Manager and handed the doctor's note.

On May 18, two days after the plaintiff provided the defendant with the doctor's note, when she reported to work, the dispatch office told her to report to the Transit Services Manager's office. The Transit Services Manager indicated to plaintiff that although he had heard a lot of positive things about the plaintiff he had to terminate her employment with the city.

These are facts according to defense counsel:

Plaintiff was an "at-will" probationary Motor Coach Operator Trainee and then a probationary Motor Coach Operator-Part Time starting Oct. 4, 2004 and thus subject to separation on probation, without right of appeal for one year from her date of hire. Motor Coach Operators receive demerits if they do not report for work on time. A Probationary Motor Coach Operator is subject to dismissal upon reaching 50 points of demerits in a 90-day period. Plaintiff received her first miss-out on Feb. 18, 2005 and 25 points of demerit. On April 27, 2005 plaintiff received her second miss out and another 25 points of demerit.

This second miss out was investigated by the Transit Services Manager and the following was determined: Plaintiff called from Court at 2:30 p.m. on April 27, 2005 and advised the dispatcher that she was still in Court, acknowledged that she did not sign on until 5:00 p.m. and that she would call back by at least 4:00 p.m. if she could not make it. Plaintiff never called the dispatcher back nor did she report for work at 5:00 p.m. When the Transit Services Manager met with plaintiff on May 3, 2005 to explore the circumstance of the April 27, 2005 miss-out, and when he determined that the miss out should be sustained, he did not know plaintiff was pregnant.

During the investigation of the April 27, 2005 miss-out plaintiff's record was reviewed which revealed that she had two (2) preventable accidents and received a "Further Development Needed" on her March 1, 2005 evaluation. Plaintiff, an 'at will' probationary employee, was terminated on May 18, 2005, based on her entire record, which included 2 preventable accidents, a rating of "Further Development Needed" and 50 points of demerits in a 90 day period due to miss-outs, and not because she was pregnant.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that she was wrongfully terminated because of her pregnancy.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that as a common carrier, the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus had a duty to provide the utmost care and safety towards its passengers, as well as provide reliable and timely service. Based on plaintiff's unsafe and unreliable record, the Big Blue Bus properly separated plaintiff while she was "at will" on probation.

Settlement Discussions

Defendant made no offers.

Damages

$177,905 ($27,905 economic; $150,000 non-economic).

Result

Verdict for $177,905 ($27,905 economic; $150,000 non-economic) plus $4,340 costs. Court granted motion for $401,188 attorney fees.

Other Information

Defendant's motion for summary judgment, motion for new trial and JNOV were all denied. Defendant has appealed. FILING DATE: Oct. 17, 2005.

Deliberation

one day

Length

three weeks