 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS October 22, 1999 pages 18-19 __________________________ EMPLOYMENT LAW Wrongful Termination Pregnancy Discrimination VERDICT: $100,000 plus fees and costs (total judgment: $271,485.32). CASE/NUMBER: Donnetta Jalomo v. HRO Systems Inc. et al./ YC032704. COURT/DATE: Los Angeles Superior Central/July 15, 1999. JUDGE: Hon. Aurelio N. Munoz, Dept. 42. DISBURSEMENT: $100,000 (verdict); $170,937 (attorney fees and costs). CONTRIBUTIONS: Judgment was entered against the three corporations jointly and severally. ATTORNEYS: Plaintiff - Gayle L. Eskridge, Rhonda J. Wolf (Eskridge Law, Torrance). TECHNICAL EXPERTS: Plaintiff - Bruce L. Ross, CPA, Los Angeles. MEDICAL EXPERTS: Defendant - Joseph Rodd, M.D., psychiatrist, Hawthorne. FACTS: Plaintiff Donnetta Jalomo, a 43-year-old sales manager, was employed by Sea Recovery Group of Companies, consisting of HRO Systems, Inc., Sea Recovery Corporation and Cycron Corporation. As sales manager, she had traveled nationally and internationally. When the plaintiff became pregnant, her obstetrician advised her not to fly during her first trimester due to the very high risk of miscarriage. The doctor wrote a letter to this effect, and the plaintiff gave this letter to her supervisor at the Sea Recovery Group. The first trimester of the plaintiff's pregnancy would have ended by March 17. On February 28, 1997, the president of the Sea Recovery Group informed the plaintiff that she was being terminated due to her pregnancy, or, if she chose, she could be permanently demoted to a clerical position at 50 percent of the salary of her sales manager position. The plaintiff refused the demotion and her employment was terminated. The exit form, prepared by the company president, stated that the plaintiff was being terminated due to her medical condition. The only medical condition the plaintiff suffered from was pregnancy. The plaintiff's male replacement had already been hired, and started work the following Monday. The plaintiff brought this action against the president, the vice president and the three companies that make up the Sea Recovery Group of Companies. She alleged causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of FEHA, for both pregnancy and gender discrimination, other related violations of FEHA, tortious termination in violation of public policy, breach of written employment contract, breach of implied-in-fact employment contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the California Equal Pay Act. PLAINTIFF CONTENTIONS: The plaintiff contended that the defendants wrongfully terminated her employment because of her pregnancy, in violation of FEHA and other statutes. The plaintiff also contended that all three companies were liable for the wrongful conduct, because they had the same owner, the same officers, the same executives, the same building, and the same employees; the employee manual stated, "You are employed by the Sea Recovery Group of Companies" and the plaintiff's paychecks, W-2 forms and 1099 all came from the Sea Recovery Group. DEFENDANT CONTENTIONS: The defendants contended that the plaintiff was employed only by HRO Systems Inc. Defendant HRO produced two witnesses who interviewed for plaintiff's position before plaintiff announced her pregnancy. One female witness testified that she was offered plaintiff's position one month before plaintiff advised HRO that she was pregnant. The defendants also contended that the plaintiff resigned. If her employment was terminated, it was because: she refused to travel; she traveled, but not enough; her sales performance was poor; she was rude; she was too friendly; she was seen drinking beer at a boat show; and she was unable to meet bona fide occupational qualifications or to perform essential job functions. The defendants further contended that they were planning to terminate her employment anyway, before finding out she was pregnant. The defendants also argued that Sea Recovery Corporation and Cycron Corporation were not alter egos of HRO Systems Inc. DAMAGES: The plaintiff claimed $277,817 in damages for lost wages and $200,000 in damages for emotional distress. JURY TRIAL: Length, 10 days; poll, 9-3; deliberation, eight hours. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS: The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $175,000, reduced to $145,000. The defendants made no settlement offers. MEDIATION: A three-hour mediation was held on March 22, 1998, before Louise Wildee of Wildee & Associates, resulting in no settlement. OTHER INFORMATION: The verdict was reached approximately one year after the case was filed. The jury found in favor of the individual defendant, the president of the companies. Summary judgment was granted as to the vice president. Supplement To The Los Angeles Daily Journal And San Francisco Daily Journal. Reprinted With Permission Of The Los Angeles Daily Journal
|
||||||||||||||||
