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
Retaliation
Age and Gender Discrimination

Judith G. Callaway v. Kemper CPA Group

Published: Feb. 20, 2010 | Result Date: Oct. 30, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 617340 consolidated with 620750 Verdict –  Claim: $124,691; Cross-claim: $208,050

Court

Stanislaus Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

A. Morgan Jones


Defendant

John J. Hollenback Jr.

Frank T. Zumwalt


Experts

Plaintiff

Brian M. Boone
(technical)

Defendant

Lammert Van Laar III
(technical)

Facts

On Nov. 1, 2003, plaintiff Judith Callaway merged her partnership group, Hagopian, Lust & Callaway, into defendant Kemper CPA Group LLP (Kemper). On Jan. 4, 2007, Kemper terminated Callaway's employment. Callaway brought an action against Kemper and partner-in-charge David Lake, alleging fraud, wrongful termination, retaliation, age discrimination, and gender discrimination. Kemper counter-claimed against Callaway for breach of contract, alleging that she failed to live up to an agreement restricting her from soliciting clients within 24 months after her termination.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Callaway alleged that she relied on the company's promise to grant her an equity partnership interest and that the company declined to give her partnership admission due to her age and gender. Further, she alleged that Kemper failed to provide her with equal pay and fired her after she complained about it. Callaway denied the counter-claim, asserting that she could solicit the clients. Callaway also sued on a Promissory Note which Kemper had entered in payment of Callaway's prior partnership interest.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defense argued that the company never promised Callaway a partnership interest and failed to meet the requirements for partnership admission. Further, the defense asserted that Callaway received fair compensation.

Settlement Discussions

Initially, Callaway demanded $1,200,000; later, at a settlement conference, she lowered her demand to $750,000. The defense offered $100,000.

Damages

Callaway requested $616,000 in lost earnings, $9,250 in lost health benefits, and $116,000 due to the alleged unequal pay. The defendants sought breach of contract damages.

Result

The jury found in favor of Callaway on her claim for breach of contract, awarding her $124,691, and found in favor of Kemper on its counterclaim, awarding it $104,025, which was doubled to $208,050 following a motion for additur under a liquidated damages provision. The jury also found for the defense on the fraud and discrimination claims.

Deliberation

five hours

Poll

11-1 (fraud), 12-0 (discrimination)

Length

19 days


#90719

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

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