On August 31, 2012, AALRR
attorneys Irma Rodriguez Moisa and Sharon J. Ormond obtained a unanimous jury
defense verdict in favor of The Regents of the University of California after a
14-day jury trial. The Plaintiff, James Friedman, was laid off from
his position at the University of California at Los Angeles in April 2010 after
a reorganization of his unit resulted in his position being eliminated.
He filed suit in September 2010 against the Regents, alleging: age and
religious creed discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA); retaliation for protesting or opposing of age and gender
discrimination in his department in violation of the FEHA; failure to take
steps to prevent retaliation from occurring in violation of the FEHA;
whistleblower retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5 for
reporting alleged copyright violations; and wrongful termination in violation
of public policy. He further sued two management employees of the
University, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. (James Friedman v. The Regents of the University of
California, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC445059.)
During the course of
litigation, the Regents successfully obtained, through various motions,
dismissals of the claims for religious creed discrimination, whistleblower
retaliation, retaliation in violation of public policy, defamation and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and dismissals of the two
individually named defendants from the action. Consequently, the only
claims presented to the jury at trial were the claims for age discrimination,
retaliation under the FEHA, and failure to prevent discrimination and
retaliation, with alleged economic damages of about $750,000 and non-economic
damages of two to three times that amount.
Plaintiff presented evidence
at trial that he was 51 years old at the time he was “terminated” from his
management position by the department’s Director and that his primary duties
were assigned to his former subordinate, who was much younger and earned less money
than Plaintiff. He further asserted that the Director engaged in a
pattern of forcing out older workers and presented evidence that he protested
or opposed of age and gender discrimination after several women had been
reduced in hours and several older workers had left his department.
Plaintiff also sought to establish that unlawful motives must have been the
basis for the termination, as the Director had informed his supervisor of
various performance issues he had with Plaintiff, yet he failed to engage
in progressive discipline before terminating the Plaintiff.
By contrast, the defense
presented evidence that Plaintiff’s unit was in fact reorganized, and done so
in accordance with goals identified through strategic planning. The
defense evidence further showed that Plaintiff’s position was eliminated, as
indicated by his supervisory duties being assumed by his superiors and his
other duties being eliminated or, to a limited extent, assigned to his former
subordinate under the supervision of the Director (who was older than the
Plaintiff). The evidence showed that Plaintiff never submitted any
written complaints about age or gender discrimination, and the defense make
clear that Plaintiff’s protest was, at best, a passing remark that the reduction
in hours of three women did not look good. There was extensive evidence
presented by the defense to support a determination that Plaintiff had not been
a good communicator and had failed to keep the Director informed of major
developments in his area despite a directive to do so, and that these issues
resulted in the timing of the reorganization being done sooner than originally
planned.
After closing arguments, the
jury deliberated just under an hour before delivering a unanimous 12-0 defense
verdict as to each Mr. Friedman’s claims.
