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

Denise Soscia v. Specialty Restaurants Corporation, et al.

Published: Jan. 9, 1999 | Result Date: Sep. 3, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 770808 Verdict –  $2,043,000

Judge

Robert D. Monarch

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Annette L. Anderson

Cecil E. Ricks Jr.


Defendant

Judith D. McMahon

Ashley A. Baron


Facts

Plaintiff Denise Soscia, was terminated from her position as administrative assistant to defendant John Kenny, the chief financial officer of defendant Specialty Restaurants Corporation (Specialty). The plaintiff co-worker had formally complained to defendant Kenny regarding quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment allegedly perpetrated against her by her immediate supervisor, the director of construction for Specialty. The plaintiff was close friends with the co-worker and corroborated her allegations. Although the harasser was allegedly "punished" for his conduct, defendants terminated the co-worker, and not the alleged harasser, claiming that the construction department was being "disbanded," and therefore, there was no position for her to fill. The co-worker was terminated eight days after she made her formal complaint to defendant Kenny. After the co-worker's termination, plaintiff observed that the harasser was on the premises, almost daily, conducting business as usual with Specialty's president, CEO and principal shareholder, defendant David Tallichet and Specialty's CFO, defendant Kenny. The plaintiff complained to many managing employees of Specialty. The plaintiff complained of the unfairness of the company in terminating the victim and not the alleged harasser, and stated that she would support her co-worker in any action she filed. Within three weeks of complaining to a vice-president and within seven weeks of being interviewed by defendant Kenny concerning the sexual harassment allegations, plaintiff was terminated by defendant Kenny, for allegedly making too many typing errors, alleged tardiness, and alleged excessive personal telephone use during work hours. The plaintiff testified that she had never been warned, counseled or criticized by defendant Kenny, or any other person, regarding those subjects. Kenny claimed plaintiff had been orally warned. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants based on violation of Government Code º12940 (f) [retaliation] and tortious discharge in violation of public policy.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $200,000 in April 1997. The defendants made no offer to settle, except to waive costs, just prior to trial.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and 10 months after the case was filed. The alleged harasser admitted that he remained an employee of defendant continously, and as of the date trial he still was an employee. Defendant Tallichet admitted at trial that he told the alleged harasser to move his office to the company's architect's office, across a common area in the business park where the offices were located, so it would not appear that he was an employee of Specialty. Per plaintiff, the defendants also attempted to make it appear that the harasser was "punished" by reducing his daily compensation, and other benefits, but documents were introduced that he was on the list for substantially year-end bonuses. Per plaintiff, the evidence supported that inference that the scheme to terminate the complaining witness and the plaintiff in this case was conceived and orchestrated by Tallichet, and therefore assessed punitive damages against him, and none against Kenny, who was arguably merely following the direction of Tallichet. The court granted defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, rendering no judgment against the two individual defendants, thus eliminating $1 million in punitive damages. The judge requested that the plaintiff agree to a remittitur of the entire damages, including actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs and interest to the sum of $400,000. The plaintiff agreed to the remittitur and the judge agreed to enter the order for that amount, rather than grant a new trial as to the corporate defendant.


#89642

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

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