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

Medical Privacy

Medical privacy or health privacy is the practice of maintaining the security and confidentiality of patient records. It involves both the conversational discretion of health care providers and the security of medical records.

Blog of the Week

Minimum wage rises some places, but it's still the COVID-19 economy

For people who are still on the job, there’s some good news in some cities and states in the form of minimum wage increases that went into effect on July 1.

Thought for the Week

"Privacy advocates warn that business' efforts to enforce social distancing and track potential coronavirus exposure could move the nation further on a path toward permanent and widespread data collection."

–Politico

List of the Week

from American Management Association

Employee Monitoring & Surveillance

Nearly 80% of major companies now monitor employees’ use of e-mail, Internet, or phone
94% of organizations deploy some method of monitoring users (compared to 42% the previous year) and 93% monitor access to sensitive data.
99% of the professionals surveyed admitted to conducting at least one potentially dangerous action, from sharing and storing login credentials to sending work documents to personal email accounts.