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
Wrongful Termination
Retaliation

Jordan Tolchin v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District

Published: Nov. 18, 2003 | Result Date: Aug. 21, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 8333144 Verdict –  $175,000

Judge

Carl W. Morris

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael S. Sorgen
(Law Office of Michael S. Sorgen)

Cheryl Mandala


Defendant

Thomas C. Lee

Ruth M. Chow


Experts

Plaintiff

Robert D. Wilkinson
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Jordan Tolchin, 62, was employed by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) as its manager of insurance. His duties included overseeing the insurance policies for BART's five planned rail extensions, including the recently completed link to San Francisco International Airport. The plaintiff alleged that he discovered problems with the terms of the insurance policies and how they were being administered. Specifically, he claimed that BART's insurance broker, motivated by an undisclosed conflict of interest, induced BART to purchase costly insurance policies with unfavorable policy terms and then failed to disclose those terms. The plaintiff alleged that these deceptive practices were wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. The plaintiff claimed that after informing BART of this situation, it retaliated against him by denying him a promotion, reducing his pay and stripping him of his job responsibilities. In July 2001, the plaintiff was terminated three months prior to his 20th anniversary with BART. The plaintiff sued BART under the False Claims Act, which provides protection to whistleblowers.

Other Information

BART's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or motion for a new trial was denied. The plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees. The court rejected BART's attempts to introduce the arbitrator's award, which was based solely on plaintiff's performance during 1999. Instead, the parties stipulated that the termination had been upheld based on events in 1999, but "that decisions does not resolved the issues before you today."

Deliberation

2 days

Poll

10-2

Length

11 days


#83796

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

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