Jerry Peacock; Octavio Gonzales; Mickey Romero v. The Capistrano Unified School District
Published: May 30, 1998 | Result Date: Sep. 24, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 752800 Verdict – $215,000
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Gregory M. Bergman
(BDG Law Group)
Experts
Plaintiff
Sinclair E. Hugh
(technical)
Jerry Von Talge
(medical)
Defendant
Mark S. Lipian
(medical)
Patricia Landau
(technical)
Marianne Reinhold
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiffs Jerry Peacock and Octavio Gonzales are two groundskeepers at defendant Capistrano Unified School District. Plaintiff Mickey Romero was a lead groundskeeper at the defendant district. All plaintiffs are in their mid-30s and maintain school grounds within the district. In January 1994, while working at a high school grounds, plaintiff Peacock was allegedly subjected to sexual harassment by defendant Richard Solorio. Solorio was also a groundskeeper and there was in issue as to whether or not he was the plaintiffs' supervisor. (He was a more experienced groundskeeper.) Plaintiff Peacock alleged Solorio masturbated in front of him, made lewd remarks and taunted him. Plaintiff Peacock also alleged he complained first to another alleged supervisor, plaintiff Romero, and Romero took Peacock to the Grounds Supervisor, who supervised both Romero and defendant Solorio. Again, there was an issue as to whether Romero was a "supervisor." Plaintiffs alleged the Grounds Supervisor, John Bishop, refused to conduct an investigation other than to ask Solorio if he did it, which he denied. Plaintiff Peacock was transferred to another crew. Plaintiff Peacock alleged that he was called a liar by the Grounds Supervisor and plaintiffs alleged that Romero was told he must cooperate with and support management and defendant Solorio or risk losing his job. Co-plaintiff Octavio Gonzales alleged that six months later, in June 1994, defendant Solario masturbated in front of him in the district's van and made lewd comments. Per defendants, Gonzales alleged that Solorio only flashed himself. After Gonzales made his complaint to Bishop and the district, an investigation was begun. However, defendant Solorio was allowed to remain in his supervisory (lead groundskeeper) position, and to supervise crews of groundskeepers. Plaintiff Gonzales was transferred to another crew. During the ensuing four months, defendant Solorio remained employed during the investigation. The plaintiffs alleged Solorio continued to harass them, including pumping Romero for information about Peacock, and asking for information about Peacock to help him in his upcoming arbitration hearing on the sexual harassment charges. Defendant Solorio alleged that he and Romero were friends and that it was Romero who made disparaging comments about Peacock. Following the disciplinary hearing in September 1994, defendant Solorio still was allowed by the defendant district to remain in his position, in charge of his crew. He made a threat of physical harm against Gonzales to a third person, after which he was placed on suspension in October 1994, days before the defendant district finally terminated him from his employment. The defendant district had a sexual harassment policy which required complete investigations of all sexual harassment allegations. The district also had a policy permitting it to place persons charged with misconduct to be placed on administrative leave or suspension. However, the district never took any steps toward placing defendant Solorio on suspension or leave until just before he was terminated, and only after the threat of physical harm to Gonzales. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants based on sexual harassment, gender discrimination, violation of FEHA, retaliation; and negligent training, supervision and retention theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
Two mediations were held and numerous efforts to settle were made but they failed to resolve the matter.
Injuries
The plaintiffs alleged emotional distress and economic losses.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and 10 months after the case was filed. The jury awarded $40,000 each for negligent retention, $20,000 each to plaintiffs Peacock and Gonzales for discrimination and $27,500 to each of them for sexual harassment. The jury found in favor of the defense on all other causes of action. MEDIATION: Two mediations were held before attorney Fred Ashley, but they did not resolve the matter. Defendants have appealed. Plaintiffs and defendants have agreed to participate in a voluntary settlement conference at the Court of Appeal before presiding Justice David G. Sills on May 26, 1998.
Deliberation
1½ weeks (per plaintiffs), four days (per defendants)
Poll
12-0 (on neg. retention, discrimination and sexual harassment)
Length
eight weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390