Representative Cases

$3.2 MILLION FOLLOWING UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT AND APPEAL in general damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees, Linza v. The Diamond Center, Breach of $300,000 Contract and Fraud.
$1.25 MILLION SETTLEMENT FOLLOWING SUCCESSFUL TRIAL, Race Discrimination.
$700,000 SETTLEMENT FOLLOWING SUCCESSFUL M.S.P.B. APPEAL, Beach v. U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, Disability Discrimination and Reprisal.
$700,000 SETTLEMENT, Whistleblower Retaliation.
$500,000 SETTLEMENT, Failure to Accommodate Disability.
$485,000 SETTLEMENT, Sexual Harassment.
$481,420 SETTLEMENT, Thompson v. City of Oakland, Whistleblower Retaliation.
$465,000 PRELITIGATION SETTLEMENT, Sexual Harassment, Wage and Hour Violations, and Defamation.
$450,000 JURY VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF, Sturdivant v. County of Alameda, Sexual Harassment.
$400,000 SETTLEMENT, Jeffries v. City of Oakland, Retaliation and Race Discrimination.
$390,000 SETTLEMENT FOLLOWING FEDERAL COURT JURY VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF, Smith v. County of Alameda, Whistleblower Retaliation.
$390,000 SETTLEMENT AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY, Race Discrimination and Retaliation.
$330,000 SETTLEMENT, Hobbs v. City of Hercules, Race and Disability Discrimination.
$320,000 SETTLEMENT AGAINST HOSPITAL CHAIN, Race Discrimination and Wrongful Termination.
$300,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT, Failure to Accommodate Disability.
$300,000 SETTLEMENT, Age Discrimination.
$300,000 PRELITIGATION SETTLEMENT AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY, Whistleblower Retaliation.
$270,000 SETTLEMENT WITH ACCOMMODATION AGREEMENT AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITY, Disability Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate Disability, and Whistleblower Retaliation.
$200,000 PRELITIGATION SETTLEMENT AGAINST HOSPITAL CHAIN, Wrongful Termination and Sex Discrimination.
$180,000 SETTLEMENT, Failure to Accommodate Pregnancy.
$150,000 PRELITIGATION SETTLEMENT WITH ALAMEDA COUNTY, Race Discrimination.

Reported Cases

Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code §1102.5 and Education Code §87160 et seq.: Pamela Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Community College District (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 832

Plaintiff, an employee of the District since 1973, alleged that she was first demoted from her position of Dean of Enrollment Services, Development and Special Programs, and then reassigned from her administrative position to a lower-level counselor’s job in retaliation for disclosing what she believed to be violations of law by the District. Following a jury trial, the jury found against plaintiff. However, plaintiff appealed the judgment and won. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and ordered that a new trial be held after concluding that the trial judge had given three erroneous jury instructions, including that “information passed along to a supervisor in the normal course of duties is not a protected disclosure.” The Court of Appeal also found error in the trial judge’s admission of evidence of plaintiff’s retirement eligibility and income with respect to the issue of mitigation of damages. The case settled following plaintiff’s successful appeal.

Wrongful Termination/Violation of Public Policy: Baker Pacific Corp. v. Suttles, et al. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1148

Plaintiffs had been employed by Baker Pacific on various asbestos removal projects. Baker Pacific entered into a contract with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for the removal of asbestos from a MetLife office building. As an express condition precedent to awarding the contract to Baker, MetLife required Baker’s employees to read and sign a written Certificate of Workers’ Release form that released MetLife from any liability for harm caused to the workers by asbestos. Plaintiffs refused to sign the release form claiming that the release violated California and federal public policy. MetLife would not permit Baker to employ plaintiffs for work in its building. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Baker and MetLife alleging wrongful termination. In a separate action filed by Baker Pacific to have the release declared valid, the Court of Appeal held that the terms of the release violated Civil Code §1668 and that the release was void as against public policy. Plaintiffs then settled their wrongful termination action for a confidential amount.

Race Discrimination: Garland v. USAir, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 715 (W.D. Pa. 1991) and Taylor v. USAir, Inc., 56 FEP 357 (W.D. Pa. 1991).

Plaintiffs, African-Americans and experienced airline pilots, applied for pilot positions with USAir. Plaintiff Taylor was never granted an interview, although he was qualified for the position and lesser qualified white applicants were interviewed and hired. Plaintiff Garland, although the most qualified applicant in his interview group and among the top applicants, was not hired by USAir until almost 3.5 years after he had applied. The court found that USAir had illegally discriminated against plaintiffs on the basis of their race and that USAir’s operation of a hiring channel which granted special preference to white applicants with relatives employed by USAir or with “influential references” had an adverse disparate impact on blacks. Plaintiffs settled with USAir and the Airline Pilots’ Association following the court’s findings and before the motion for plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees for a substantial 7-figure sum and the injunctive relief of seniority adjustment.

H&R Weekly

Topic of the Week

Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)

We know many people have questions about The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). We have compiled information along with answers to many frequently asked questions to provide guidance during this transition. We have also provided answers to q

Blog of the Week

Millions of People Can’t Pay Rent Tomorrow. Here’s How Some Are Organizing.

As April 1 looms and the first rent payment since the start of the coronavirus pandemic becomes due, countless people wonder how they’ll be able to afford to pay. Since the start of the coronavirus crisis, millions have had their hours cut, been furloughed, or laid off. A whopping 3.3 million have applied for unemployment benefits, and some say the unemployment rate could reach 30%. To put that in perspective, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 25%.

Thought for the Week

"If women could be making what they should be making, what their male counterparts are making, the economy would be doing much better, if we're really serious about making sure that women, particularly women of color are earning the money that they deserve, then we need to make sure that we're making our voices heard this (election) year."

–Shannon Williams of the Equal Pay Today Campaign

List of the Week

from National Partnership for Women & Families

America’s Women and the Wage Gap

Black women working full time, year-round typically make only 62 cents for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts.
Latina women working full time, year-round typically make only 54 cents for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts.
Asian women working full time, year round are typically paid 90 cents for every dollar paid to their white, non-Hispanic male counterparts.
The wage gap translates into an annual median loss of $23,540 for Black women, $28,036 for Latinas, $24,443 for Native women, and $6,007 for Asian women.