Reina Martinez - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          discrimination on the basis of sex.  Specifically, it ruled that            
          women who attempted to become trainee agents were "lied to,                 
          misinformed, and discouraged in their efforts to obtain the entry           
          level sales position."  The court found State Farm liable with              
          respect to "all female applicants and deterred applicants who, at           
          any time since July 5, 1974, have been, are, or will be denied              
          recruitment, selection and/or hire as trainee agents by defendant           
          companies within the State of California."  Petitioner ultimately           
          joined the class action suit against State Farm.                            
               The parties to the class action subsequently reached an                
          agreement in a consent decree as to the remedy phase of the                 
          litigation.  The consent decree provided for informal individual            
          hearings before a special master to determine whether each                  
          claimant was entitled to damages and the amount of such damages.            
          In October of 1990, petitioner's hearing was held before a                  
          special master who, on January 16, 1991, ruled that State Farm              
          had discriminated against petitioner.  On January 28, 1991, State           
          Farm issued a $653,230 check payable to petitioner and her                  
          attorney.  Petitioner's attorney retained legal fees of $163,308,           
          and the $489,922 balance was paid to petitioner.                            
               On her 1991 Federal income tax return, petitioner excluded             
          the $653,230 payment from her gross income.  Respondent                     
          determined that the entire amount should have been included in              
          petitioner's gross income.  The petition in this case was filed             
          on December 28, 1995.                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011