Lenora Spencer v. Quinlan, Kershaw & Fanucchi and Edward Fanucchi
Published: Mar. 18, 2000 | Result Date: Feb. 4, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 611957 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Fresno Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Michael J.F. Smith
(Michael J.F. Smith, APC)
Experts
Plaintiff
Martine Ajwa
(technical)
Michael Zimmerman
(medical)
Facts
Plaintiff Lenora Spencer, a 50-year-old legal secretary, worked for defendant Fanucchi and his law firm Quinlan,
Kershaw & Fanucchi from 1990 through May 1997.
The plaintiff quit her job two times prior to the subject matter of this litigation, the first in a meeting with
defendant Fanucchi in June 1996, the second in a September 1996 meeting followed by a letter of resignation.
The plaintiff felt that she should be allowed to work overtime whenever the work required it. The employerÆs
policy was never established due to conflicting testimony. However, the employer contended he had a policy
that required employees to be authorized in advance to work overtime.
From time to time plaintiff argued with the employer about this policy. On May 24, 1997, she worked
authorized overtime. The following Monday, May 26, 1997, was a holiday, and she called in sick on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, she called the office and advised the bookkeeper that she had personal business to attend to,
and for the rest of the week, Fanucchi should replace her.
After receiving this message, Fanucchi was told that various personal items belonging to plaintiff had been
removed from her work area. This was also a disputed fact at trial, due to conflicting testimony by one of
defendantÆs employee.
He concluded that this was another resignation. He sent plaintiff a letter, acknowledging her telephone
message, and accepting her resignation. Six weeks later, she asserted in a letter that she had been terminated in
retaliation for her alleged demands regarding overtime.
The plaintiff filed for unemployment benefits and filed a claim for over $23,000 in back pay and penalties with
the State Labor Commissioner, alleging a claim for unpaid overtime going back over three years.
The unemployment claim ended in a judgment to the effect that she had voluntarily quit. The Labor
Commissioner determined that she did not have a valid claim, except that she was legally misclassified as an
independent contractor during part of 1996. The Labor Commissioner also declined to impose penalties.
The plaintiff sought a new trial in Superior Court on her overtime claim. In the new trial, held during 1999; she
was awarded nothing.
The court awarded over $16,000 to defendant for attorney fees in that proceeding, pursuant to the Labor Code.
The latest trial was on her common law tort claim that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of public
policy in retaliation for her (anticipated) overtime claim. Her other claims were summarily adjudicated, by the
Hon. Donald Black.
The defendants denied that plaintiff was terminated asserting, that plaintiff resigned on
May 28, 1997.
Other Information
The jury concluded that plaintiff was not terminated. Judgment was entered one year and eight months after the case was filed.
Deliberation
½ hour
Poll
12-0
Length
four days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390