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
Sexual Harassment
Retaliation, Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination

Briones v. KLA-Tencor Corp.

Published: Jan. 29, 2011 | Result Date: Nov. 10, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1:08-cv-127091 Verdict –  Defense verdict; $26,000 in past lost income and unspecified amount in non-economic damages.

Court

Santa Clara Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Charles R. Roe
(Samuelson, Wilson & Roe)


Defendant

Janine S. Simerly
(Miller Law Group)

Kerry McInerney Freeman
(Cozen O'Connor)


Facts

This trial was severed into two cases: Briones v. KLA-Tencor Corp., and Shields v. KLA-Tencor Corp.

In Briones v. KLA-Tencor Corp., Briones claimed she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor, including that he made sexually explicit statements and talked about other women in a sexually explicit manner, showed her sexually explicit images, acted in a sexually suggestive way, made statements and took actions indicating that he wanted a sexual relationship with her, made inappropriate inquiries into her sexual history, and talked about his own sexual history.

Defendants denied plaintiff's allegations, and alternatively argued that the conduct at issue was not unwelcome, severe or pervasive.

In Shields v. KLA-Tencor Corp., Carol Shields was laid off from her position as an export administrator for KLA-Tencor Corp. in November 2008. Shields sued KLA-Tencor alleging, among other things, disability discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate disability.

Shields was a diabetic and was under doctor's orders to work no more than nine hours a day. She claimed her supervisors gave her work that caused her to work up to nine and a half hours a day at least two days a week during her employment. Also, she filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleging discrimination and harassment in the workplace, and she claimed that the company retaliated against her for doing so.

KLA-Tencor denied Shields' allegations. Further, the company claimed that her termination was for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reasons.

Damages

In the first case, Briones sought an unspecified amount in non-economic damages. In the second case, Shields sought $26,000 in past lost income and unspecified amount in non-economic damages.

Result

In the first case, the verdict was for the defense. In the second case, the jury found the company had failed to accommodate Shields, but that Shields had not experienced any discrimination or retaliation. She was awarded $26,000 for past lost income, and $10,000 for non-economic damages.

Other Information

Result dates: Nov. 10, 2010 and Dec. 7, 2010.

Length

1.5 weeks, three weeks


#93464

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

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