Facts

Hyundai Motor America Inc. hired plaintiff Veona Brooke Aspesi in 1998 as a legal secretary. She was promoted several times and received several raises, until she held the position of district sales manager ("DSM") in California.

In Oct. 2004, Aspesi was offered another promotion to a management position in Texas. However, shortly thereafter, Hyundai alleged that it discovered Aspesi was improperly attempting to take advantage of the company's relocation reimbursement system, and on that basis, withdrew the promotion. The employee who eventually was promoted to this position in Texas was female. Aspesi alleged that her promotion was taken away in retaliation of her allegedly complaining that she was not being compensated fairly, which Hyundai denied.

Aspesi's husband, Marvin John Aspesi, also brought a cause of action against Hyundai and one of its managers for loss of consortium.

In Feb. 2006, through her counsel, Aspesi made her first written complaint that her new manager made inappropriate comments to her that constituted gender discrimination and gender harassment, which Hyundai denied. Hyundai placed Aspesi on a paid leave, at the request her counsel, and conducted an immediate investigation. Hyundai concluded that Aspesi's claims lacked merit, and asked her to return to work. Aspesi refused and claimed she had been constructively terminated, which Hyundai denied.

Result

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found in favor of Hyundai and its manager on all counts, determining that Hyundai and its manager did not discriminate, harass, retaliate, fail to prevent discrimination or harassment, or constructively discharge Aspesi, and that Aspesi's loss of consortium claim had no merit as well.

Other Information

Hyundai intends to file a motion to recover its fees and costs against Veona Brooke and Marvin John Aspesi under C.C.P. Section 998, and as the prevailing party under the FEHA/EEOC. Plaintiffs intend to file an appeal on the basis that the court committed prejudicial error with regard to the exclusion of evidence of defendant Zafar Brooks' history of harassment and plaintiff's complaint that the harassment and discrimination was part of a pattern of practice, among other issues.

Length

four weeks