Hughes v. State of California (Los Angeles, California)

Lieutenant Charles Hughes was a union leader discharged by the California State Prison system from his job at the prison in Lancaster in retaliation for his reporting illegal racial segregation of inmates and other racial discrmination, a Los Angles jury has found.

Plaintiff attorney Stephen J. Horvath told the jury in closing argument that the Department had an unwritten blanket policy to segregate inmates by race. Lieutenant Hughes testified before the California State Senate about segregated conditions in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) prisons. In addition, Hughes subsequently complained about a rat-with-a-target display seen in the prison warden’s office (allegedly encouraging a code of silence), and a comedy performance rife with racial epithets.

Although Hughes had a lengthy and “stellar” career with promotions and excellent evaluations, soon after the complaints, he was discharged soon thereafter based on three adverse actions in rapid succession, for using profanity at work and not following policies after a prisoner was murdered.

Representing the Department of Corrections, deputy Attorney General Bruce Reynolds told the jury that Lieutenant Hughes was not retaliated against, but brought the adverse actions upon himself by his own conduct. There was no direct evidence from any employee or decision-maker — statements, emails, text messages, or otherwise — stating that they wanted to get rid of Mr. Hughes because of his complaints, or indicating the presence of a conspiracy.

The circumstantial evidence, said Reynolds, was inadequate to show retaliation, because the Department had a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for its actions. The extensive procedural checks associated with the discpline of a public employee ensured the credibility of the proferred reasons for the adverse action, said Reynolds. Reynolds characterized Hughes as “a top-notch complainer, the king of complaints,” who attempted to hide behind his complaints to avoid the consequences of his job performance.

The jury found that the plaintiff engaged in communications protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and that some of those communications were motivating reasons for some of the adverse actions, including Lieutenant Hughes’ termination.

The jury awarded past and future lost wages, as well as past and future general damages, totaling $1.67M. 

CVN webcast Hughes v. California live.

Murdoch v. UPS (Los Angeles, California)

Danny Murdoch was a supervisor at United Parcel Service (UPS) who claimed that he was improperly classified as exempt and therefore entitled to recover overtime pay.

John Furutani of Furutani & Peters, told the jury that Mr. Murdoch’s job was checklist-oriented, and he had no discretion or latitude. “His job was to make sure that all the UPS work methods and procedures were followed. He was told, ‘Follow the plan. Don’t deviate from the plan. If you deviate from the plan, you are fired.’”

Morever, said Mr. Furutani, Mr. Murdoch was forced to work long hours, six days per week, with some shifts very close together, and without meal and rest breaks. He had no chance to negotiate his salary or working conditions, said Mr. Furutani.

For UPS, Paul Hastings’ Elena Baca told the jury that Mr. Murdoch was earning over $80K per year when he left the company, plus bonuses and stock awards that were only available to full-time management. “But when Mr. Murdoch wasn’t promoted to the next level of management on the schedule he wanted, he went to FedEx, took a salaried management job over there, quit, and then sued UPS saying that he shouldn’t have been paid a salary, that instead he’s now due overtime.”

The jury unanimously concluded that Mr. Murdoch was an exempt employee.

CVN webcast the UPS wage & hour trial live.

In Collum v. Knife River, a Sacramento jury determined that employer Concrete Inc. discriminated against disabled employee Stewart Collum by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation, and by failing to engage in an interactive process to determine if a reasonable accommodation were possible. The jury awarded $15K in damages.

According to plaintiff attorney Galen Shimoda, Stewart Cullom was an experienced concrete mixer driver who was discharged after suffering a rotator cuff injury. To continue in his position, he needed to be able to use aluminum chutes for pouring the concrete, instead of steel chutes, because aluminum chutes weighed only 25 pounds, instead of 50 pounds. Aluminum chutes would have cost approximately $1,000, but were not provided by the employer.

For the defense, Kroloff’s Thomas Perry told the jury that Cullom’s shoulder problems would not have been resolved by the use of the lighter, aluminum chutes. Mr. Perry explained that Mr. Collum continued to suffer pain even without any lifting at all, and could not bat, throw, or bowl. Therefore, because Mr. Collum could not lift any weight without experiencing pain, and because Mr. Collum’s condition was not repairable and would only get worse, he was unable to do his job even with an accommodation.

The jury found that Cullom could have done his job with a reasonable accommodation, and awarded $12,000 in past earnings, and $3,000 in past non-economic damages.

Watch CVN’s webcast of Cullom v. Knife River.

In Crouch v. Playboy, Julie Crouch, a master control operator at Playboy TV who monitored the Playboy Channel for quality control, prevailed on her sexual harassment claim against co-worker Charles Dorn and Playboy.

Plaintiff attorney Mark Valencia replayed during closing argument the deposition testimony of Mr. Dorn conceding that he had kissed Ms. Crouch, whispered in her ear, used the word ‘fuck’ in her presence, and sat in her lap. A co-worker testified that Mr. Dorn had yelled at Ms. Crouch and referred to women as ‘whores.’

“Julie Crouch took the stand,” Mr. Valencia told the jury, “and testified that Mr. Dorn would approach her and whisper in her ears and proposition her. Mr. Dorn is saying that he would whisper into her ear, ‘Hey, how’s it going.’…Who’s really going to believe that?…Mr. Dorn is not credible.”

Mr. Valencia pointed out that four employees had approached human resources with complaints, and told the jury that Mr. Dorn had demonstrated a ‘superiority complex’ over women, and that the testimony showed numerous instances of inappropriate touching.

Mr. Valencia argued that Ms. Crouch had also suffered disability discrimination, because Ms. Crouch was severely ill while she worked at Playboy. According to Mr. Valencia, Ms. Crouch was teased about her condition, and that she had complained to her supervisors, but one of her supervisors teased her as well.

Playboy itself, said Mr. Valencia, failed to enforce its human resources policies of reporting and investigating harassment allegations. “We have supervisor after supervisor after supervisor seeing the conduct, and trying to do something, but they all have to go through Chere Johnson, so the managers failed and the supervisors failed,” as did the Human Resources executives, Mr. Valencia told the jury, even after “a litany of exit interviews.”

Mr. Valencia concluded with a clip from Mr. Dorn’s deposition, in which he testified that no one from Playboy had ever told him that his manner of speech was inappropriate and that he had never been warned or disciplined for his behavior at Playboy.

For the defense, Morgan Lewis’s Jason Mills told the jury, “Maybe the most interesting character trait of Ms. Crouch that you’ve been able to observe is her complete unwillingness to accept any kind of role in what we’ve been watching here. She blames everybody around her…But the fact of the matter is that Ms. Crouch was in full control all along because as she knew perfectly well, the only thing she needed to do was…actually just say to somebody, ‘I’m not comfortable with what’s happening here, I want it to be addressed,’ and she knew perfectly well that it would be addressed immediately.”

“The reason Ms. Crouch never raised that,” Mr. Mills continued, “…is because nothing was happening…what Ms. Crouch is trying to do here is revise history…she tried to change that because ten months after she found out her position was eliminated, maybe she decided she needed some money…”

The jury found in favor of Ms. Crouch on her sexual harassment claim against Mr. Dorn and Playboy, and awarded compensatory damages of $182.5K, as well as punitive damages against Mr. Dorn of $10K.

Watch CVN’s webcast of Crouch v. Playboy.

In Rosenberg v. Musical Arts Association, an Ohio jury found against classical music critic Donald Rosenberg, who claimed he was reassigned because he negatively reviewed the Cleveland Orchestra.

Plaintiff attorney Steven Sindell told the jury that Rosenberg was not biased in his opinion that the orchestra’s guest conductors were more talented than the orchestra’s own musical director, Franz Welser-Most. Instead, said Mr. Sindell, the evidence would show that powerful people at the city’s Musical Arts Association defamed Rosenberg and interfered with Rosenberg’s employment because they did not like his criticism of the conductor whom they had chosen to employ.

For the defense, Littler Mendelson’s Suellen Oswald told the jury that Susan Goldberg, the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s editor, reasonably concluded over a period of more than a year that Mr. Rosenberg had a “premeditated and negative view about Mr. Welser-Most and the way he conducted the orchestra…and that his reviews of the concerts he covered had become predictably negative.”  Moreover, Mr. Rosenberg had not lost a penny as a result of his reassignment.

The jury found in favor of the defense.

Watch opening statements in Donald Rosenberg v. Musical Arts Association trial webcast on CVN.