Lance L. Ravella v. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Published: Jul. 30, 2005 | Result Date: Apr. 28, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 8086961 Verdict – $119,000
Judge
Court
Alameda Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Edward W. Suman
(Law Offices of Edward W. Suman)
Defendant
Michael E. Brewer
(Littler Mendelson PC)
Experts
Plaintiff
Victor H. Morales
(technical)
Mary Ciddio
(technical)
Defendant
Trish Lane
(technical)
Phillip H. Allman III, Ph.D.
(technical)
Facts
According to the Plaintiff: The plaintiff, Lance R. Ravella, worked as a graphic illustrator for a division of McGraw-Hill Companies, the defendant. According to the plaintiff, since 1988, when he was hired, he had received average or above average annual performance reviews and annual merit increases averaging almost four percent. Beginning in around 1997, the plaintiff alleged that McGraw Hill reduced its quality control safeguards resulting in substandard work in its publications and complaints from its authors. He alleged that his immediate supervisor and the director of his department placed the blame on him because they were trying to justify dismissing him. According to the plaintiff, in 1998, a favorable evaluation was rewritten to an unfavorable one. He was told he would have to take a speed and accuracy test for page layout, however, there were not any written standards for passing or failing. According to the Defendant: The plaintiff worked as a composition technician. The defendant required composition technicians to become proficient in page layout software. The defendant told the plaintiff that he needed to learn page layout. Instead of completing the page layout training, in April 1998, the plaintiff announced his early retirement for the following October.
Settlement Discussions
Last demand was $250,000. Last offer was $50,000.
Other Information
The plaintiff initially was awarded $61,750 for intentional infliction of emotional distress and $119,000 for breach of implied contract not to discharge without good cause. The Court disallowed future loss of earnings and benefits after October 2004 because the division for which the plaintiff worked was discontinued. The defendant brought a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In partially granting the defendant's judgment notwithstanding the verdict motion, the Court found that the plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was barred by the exclusivity of workers' compensation laws, thus eliminating the plaintiff's $61,750 emotional distress award. The Court also found that prejudgment interest must omit amounts attributable to the time period prior to filing the complaint, non-cash compensation and amounts that would have been withheld from the plaintiff's pay.
Deliberation
two days
Poll
9-3 (breach of implied contract), unanimous on emotional distress
Length
16 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390