- 4 -
causes of action (including the one for intentional infliction of
emotional distress), and the court dismissed others pursuant to a
motion by Whittier for summary adjudication. One cause of action
remained for trial; namely, petitioner’s claim against Whittier
under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal.
Govt. Code sec. 12900 et seq. She alleged that, prior to and at
the time of her termination, she had a disability (i.e., ulcers)
within the meaning of FEHA, that Whittier knew of this condition,
and that Whittier wrongfully terminated her. As a direct and
proximate result of Whittier’s actions, petitioner alleged, she
suffered lost wages and emotional distress. She did not allege
in the FEHA cause of action that Whittier caused or exacerbated
her ulcer condition, and she voluntarily dismissed with prejudice
any such claims in her other causes of action.
At trial of her lawsuit against Whittier, petitioner
presented facts to support the allegations in her complaint. She
presented the testimony of economist Peter Formuzis, Ph.D., who
testified that as a result of Whittier’s actions, petitioner had
lost $161,817 in wages and benefits as of the time of trial, and
that she would lose a net present value of up to $235,912 in
future wages as a result of the discrimination, for a total
economic loss of up to $397,729. At the conclusion of the trial,
the jury was given a special verdict form with the following nine
questions.
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