An astronomical $137 million jury verdict against Tesla has again been reduced, for a second (and potentially final) time. Last Monday, following a five-day trial on damages, a federal court jury awarded Owen Diaz, a former Tesla elevator operator, $175,000 in emotional distress damages and $3 million in punitive damages, totaling nearly $3.2 million—almost $134 million shy of the award he originally obtained in 2021.
We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc., 76 Cal. App. 5th 811 (2022)
Plaintiffs, unlicensed flooring installers, installed floors on behalf of Roussos Construction, a general contractor. There were three individuals working between plaintiffs and Roussos whom plaintiffs called “supervisors” and Roussos called “subcontractors.” At trial, Roussos maintained that it used independent contractors (the three individuals) who were licensed to perform work not permitted by Roussos’
$150,000 Sexual Harassment Verdict And $680,000 Fee Award Affirmed
Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1228 (2014)
Max Taylor worked as a floorhand on an oil rig where he alleged he was harassed by his supervisors who called him “queer,” “fagot [sic],” “homo,” and “gay porn star” and was subjected to other humiliating and harassing conduct, including simulated masturbation
Harris v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013)
Wynona Harris alleged her employment was terminated by the City of Santa Monica because of her pregnancy in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The city claimed Harris had been fired for poor job performance – she had two preventable traffic accidents and two late arrivals to work during her first six months
Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 941 (Feb. 7, 2013)
Wynona Harris, a bus driver for the City of Santa Monica (the City), alleged that she was fired because of her pregnancy in violation of the prohibition against sex discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The City denied Harris’s allegations and asserted as an affirmative defense that the City had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to fire Harris. At trial, the City asked the court to instruct the jury that if it found a mix of discriminatory and legitimate motives, the City could escape liability by proving that a legitimate motive alone would have led to the same decision. The trial court refused the instruction and instead told the jury that Harris had to prove that her pregnancy was a “motivating factor/reason for the discharge.” The jury found in favor of Harris and awarded her $177,905 in damages. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the requested instruction was legally correct and that refusal to give the instruction was prejudicial error.
Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd., 2012 WL 6628544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
Julie Gilman Veronese sued Lucasfilm on a number of theories, including pregnancy discrimination, failure to prevent pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Following 11 days of trial and three days of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Veronese in the amount of $93,830 for past economic
Alamo v. Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp., 2012 WL 4450066 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
Lorena Alamo sued her former employer Practice Management Information Corp. (“PMIC”) for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Alamo was terminated for poor work performance after she returned from maternity leave. Following a jury
Cash v. Winn, 205 Cal. App. 4th 1285 (2012)
Joy Cash, who is not a licensed or trained nurse, cared for Iola Winn, who is in her 90’s, in Winn’s home. After she left her employment, Cash sued Winn for failure to pay her overtime wages. Winn claimed that Cash was a personal attendant within the meaning of Wage Order No. 15 and thus
Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Cmty. Coll. Dist., 202 Cal. App. 4th 832 (2012)
Pamela Mize-Kurzman, who had been promoted to Dean of Enrollment Services as part of a settlement of a previous lawsuit against the district, claimed the district retaliated against her for disclosing what she believed to be violations of the law or regulations to various individuals and entities. Mize-Kurzman went to trial against