- 5 -
environment case.” This document included a detailed statement
of the facts relevant to the case from the point of view of the
May Company. The only mention of the physical injury to
petitioner’s hand was the following:
A few weeks later, Murray stuck her finger in the spokes on
a wheelchair while trying to apprehend a disabled
shoplifter. She suffered a sprained finger and filed a
workers comp claim. The claim was assigned to Ahonen
because of his knowledge of loss prevention. He had one
friendly conversation with Plaintiff that he documented and
she left a pleasant voice mail to him after she abandoned
her injury claim. * * * Murray claims that Ahonen was
assigned to her comp claim as an act of retaliation. * * *
Mackay had nothing to do with the assignment of the comp
claim to Ahonen and Murray never complained to Robinsons-May
although she reposed trust in Mackay. Whether assigning
Ahonen to the claim is retaliation as defined in the
government code is dubious to put it mildly.
Finally, in petitioner’s “Mandatory Settlement Conference
Brief”, dated September 2, 1999, petitioner stated that “This
action is brought by [petitioner] to recover damages for injuries
incurred by her as the result of sexual harassment”. The only
reference that was made to the physical injury to petitioner’s
hand was in the context of the workers’ compensation claim and
the alleged retaliatory conduct in assigning a harasser to the
claim. However, the document stated that petitioner’s “finger is
now permanently deformed”.
Petitioner entered into an agreement to settle her lawsuit
against the May Company in November 1999. The agreement, titled
“Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims”, provides in
relevant part as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011