A Circuit Court jury Friday awarded a former Honolulu city official more than $3 million dollars, upholding her claim that she lost her job in 2003 for blowing the whistle on what she saw as wrongdoing in the administration of the former Mayor.
The jury deliberated a half-day before returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her just more than $1 million in lost wages and retirement benefits and $2 million in general damages for pain and suffering inflicted on her by city officials.
According to the news report, the plaintiff’s attorney stated that in the weeks before the trial, he offered to settle the whistleblower case for $75,000, but defense counsel never offered more than $5,000.
In a closely watched case I last wrote about here, the law firm Sidley Austin Brown & Wood has agreed to pay $27.5 million dollars to settle an age bias suit brought against it by the EEOC. The case had to do with the question of the EEOC’s ability to seek money damages and reinstatement for partners who were downgraded from partner status by the firm in 1999 and others forced out because of an age-based retirement policy.
The firm had long argued that the partners were just that, partners, and therefore not covered employees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The agency argued that the partners were really employees with no real policy-making power in the firm or power to hire or fire other employees.
Apparently, after the Supreme Court refused to intervene prior to trial and overturn the Seventh Circuit as to this question, the firm decided it was worth $27.5 million to put the case behind it. Now the question becomes how many more firms will be targeted by the EEOC as this type of “partner” structure is not at all uncommon.
Last week a New York Knicks coach Isaiah Thomas was found liable for sexual harassment against a former colleague. The jury awarded $11,000,000.00 in damages against the team’s owner and its chairman.
Madison Square Garden, which owns the Knicks, and MSG president James Dolan were ordered to pay the amount to Browne Sanders for allowing her to work in an actionable hostile environment. Ms. Sanders filed her lawsuit in January 2006, alleging that management failed to act despite her repeated complaints against Thomas’ behavior. When Browne Sanders threatened to sue, the company suspended her and then fired her when her accusations were deemed groundless.
Following the verdict, Thomas insisted he was innocent, stating “I want to say it as loud as I possibly can. I’m innocent. I’m very innocent. . . . I’m extremely disappointed that the jury could not see the facts … and I will appeal.” The problem for Thomas and the Company, of course, was what Thomas had previously stated during his sworn deposition. Here is a clip:
I am assuming that Thomas is talking about different “facts” that the jury was not able to see.
Recent Comments