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

Pay or Compensation Discrimination

Blog of the Week

Black workers are hurt most as Congress doesn't extend unemployment

One mostly unintended aspect of the $600 in added unemployment benefits is that it reduced racial disparities. But that means that one aspect of the $600 expiring is that those same racial disparities have come roaring back.

Thought for the Week

"Black women are a large percentage of COVID-19 front-line workers, but they are being paid less than their white male peers, and are experiencing high unemployment. "

–National Women's Law Center

List of the Week

from Center For American Progress

The Disproportionate Economic Effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Women of Color

An estimated 60.3 percent of maids and housekeepers, 50.3 percent of nursing assistants, and 45.7 percent of personal care aides are women of color.
Although many women of color work in essential jobs, they also disproportionately work in several of the industries hit hardest by job losses.
Women of color account for 53.8 percent of workers in the accommodations and food services industry and 80 percent of workers in the health and social assistance industry.
Hispanic families and Black families engaged in family caregiving are estimated to spend 44 percent and 34 percent, respectively, of their annual income on caregiving expenses, compared with 14 percent for white families and 9 percent for Asian families.