Facts

Plaintiff, Yvonne Hammond, an African American woman then in her mid-60s, worked as a nurse instructor for Sheriff's Medical Services Staff Development Unit ["SDU"] for many years. Her assignments changed when a new clinical nursing director was brought in to supervise the SDU to prepare the medical staff for certification of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) hospital as a Correctional Treatment Center. This involved increasing training for the medical professionals, including adding new subject matter and beefing up training staff.

The plaintiff was unhappy with the changes, and believed the changes were initiated to harass and retaliate against her because of her race and age. Evidence showed that plaintiff's supervisor was three years older than she, and that there were legitimate business reasons for the restructuring of classes and assignments. The plaintiff had fewer classes to teach, but was given assignments and projects related to the function and mission of the SDU, as were other nurse instructors.

Sheriff's Department conducted an investigation, which was reviewed by the Equity Oversight Panel (a neutral, independent panel of individuals from outside the LASD), which found that no departmental or county policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment or retaliation were violated.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff was unhappy that her teaching schedule changed, and that the number of classes she taught decreased. She believed that some of her peers were treated better than she, and attributed her new assignments to race and age discrimination. When two co-workers complained about her, plaintiff was temporarily relocated to work across the street from her usual office, at another custody facility. She alleged that the transfer was retaliation by her supervisor.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that the realignment of the nurse instructors' schedules and assignments were necessitated by the pending certification of the medical facilities as a Correctional Treatment Center under the Health and Safety Code. Newer training staff needed to get up to speed so that adequate coverage for all of the classes existed. The plaintiff was given many quality assignments related to the function of the SDU. The plaintiff's temporary transfer to an office across the street from her usual work location was necessary to separate her from two complainants during an investigation of their allegations. Evidence at trial showed that the supervisor had no involvement in the decision to transfer plaintiff.

The plaintiff's co-worker, also an African-American, testified that plaintiff saw her world as if "it was all about discrimination." The co-worker described plaintiff's attitude to be "always negative" and testified that plaintiff was unfounded in her belief that their supervisor was prejudiced against African Americans.

Settlement Discussions

The defendants offered $30,000 to settle before trial.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed she retired a couple of years early, but did not have a constructive termination claim.

Result

The individual defendant, plaintiff's supervisor, was dismissed just before the start of the jury trial. Judgment was in favor of the defendant, county of Los Angeles.

Other Information

The case went to mediation but failed to settle, as the parties were hundreds of thousands of dollars apart. Cost bill and objection thereto filed. This case was up on appeal for a prolonged period of time after dismissal on summary judgment in the trial court. FILING DATE: Aug. 18, 2004.

Deliberation

two days

Poll

11-1 (defense)

Length

10 days