Source: http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/85085
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:17:55+00:00

Document:
GUY WYSINGER, Appellant, v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Appellant.
Hadsell & Stormer, Dan Stormer, Virginia Keeny, Murray & Whitehead and Nigel A. Whitehead for Appellant Guy Wysinger.
Defendant Automobile Club of Southern California (ACSC) appeals a judgment after jury trial. Guy Wysinger filed a discrimination action against ACSC, his former employer. We affirm because 1) substantial evidence supports the finding that ACSC unlawfully retaliated against Wysinger for filing an age discrimination claim; 2) the court did not commit reversible error with instruction on retaliatory employer conduct; 3) the jury verdicts were consistent; 4) substantial evidence supports the findings that ACSC's conduct damaged Wysinger; 5) the $1 million punitive damages award was not excessive; and 6) the court properly apportioned the award of attorney fees to Wysinger.
Wysinger was a district manger for ACSC's Santa Barbara office. He had received favorable performance evaluations during the 25 years of his employment. He suffered from lupus, a heart condition, and rheumatoid arthritis. His daily commute to Santa Barbara aggravated his arthritis. He wanted to be ACSC's Ventura office manager because it would involve a less arduous commute, and would be a promotion.
In the late 1990s, ACSC decided to implement a new compensation plan. ACSC's older office managers opposed it because they would receive a disproportionate reduction in their compensation.
Robert Kane, ACSC's vice president of district office operations, called Wysinger into his office and told him, "[W]e are going to crush" those opposing the plan. Kane told Michael Coleman, another senior manager who opposed the plan, that ACSC would not tolerate opposition to it. He said, "It doesn't matter what you did for this company in the last 30 . . . years. None of that matters. And you can die at your desk. We'll replace you tomorrow. Nobody cares."
In 1999, Wysinger filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming ACSC committed age discrimination. ACSC did not impose the pay cuts.
In 2002, there was an opening for a manager in ACSC's Ventura office, a position that Wysinger wanted. Figge testified that Wysinger ran an "elite," or extremely well-managed office, unlike the one operated by employee Grant Sigmund. Figge recommended Wysinger for the job because he was the most qualified and had formerly managed the Ventura office. Kane agreed.
Peter McDonald, an ACSC senior vice president, met with Kane. McDonald testified, "[W]e were . . . trying to change the culture of the organization . . . . We were actively trying to get people from other parts of the company to apply." Wysinger was not reassigned to Ventura and ACSC posted the position to attract other applicants. Several people applied, Sigmund did not. Nevertheless, Kane recommended Sigmund for the position and McDonald approved it.
Wysinger testified that because of ACSC's conduct he became depressed and was unable to work. Dr. Alan Karbelnig, a psychotherapist, testified Wysinger suffered from depression because of the way he was treated at ACSC. Stephanie Rizzardi-Pearson, a forensic economist, testified that given Wysinger's age and inability to work he would suffer a $280,129 loss in future earnings.
In its special verdict, the jury found 1) that ACSC did not "fail to provide a required reasonable accommodation to . . . Wysinger for his physical disability"; 2) ACSC did not discriminate against him because of his physical disability; 3) ACSC retaliated against Wysinger because he filed a complaint of age discrimination; 4) ACSC did not discriminate against him because of his age; and 5) ACSC failed to engage in an interactive process regarding his disability. It found Wysinger sustained economic damages of $204,000, noneconomic damages of $80,000 and ACSC's conduct was "malicious, oppressive, and/or fraudulent."
The trial court awarded Wysinger attorney fees of $978,791. ACSC requested that the fees be apportioned. The court denied that request.
ACSC claims that the Ventura position would not have changed Wysinger's employment status. Sandi Adame, ACSC's human resources manager, testified however, it would have been a promotion. Kane said it involved a higher classification within management, and offers higher salary.
ACSC claims that McDonald independently decided not to promote Wysinger and was not influenced by Kane. But McDonald said he followed Kane's final recommendation to reject Wysinger and routinely relied on Kane's advice about managers. Kane knew Wysinger had more experience than Sigmund, that Wysinger's office was classified as elite and Sigmund's was not. The jury could find that Kane agreed with Figge that Wysinger was the best qualified, but selected Sigmund even though he had not applied for the position. It could reasonably infer that McDonald relied on Kane in making this selection.
ACSC argues that McDonald did not know that Wysinger filed an age discrimination claim and was motivated by neutral business justifications. But the jury could reasonably infer that anyone in his position would know about the EEOC complaint because of its financial impact on the company. In addition, jurors could infer the sudden decision to "change the culture" instead of approving Wysinger's transfer was a pretext to deny Wysinger what should have been a routine reassignment. Wysinger had previously managed the Ventura office.
In any event, a decision maker's ignorance does not "categorically shield the employer from liability if other substantial contributors to the decision bore the requisite animus. [Citation.]" (Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 110.) If he participated in the decision, jurors may infer animus. (Roebuck v. Drexel University (3rd Cir. 1988) 852 F.2d 715, 727.) Because Kane was a motivating force in the selection, his animus is imputed to ACSC. (Reeves, supra, at p. 110.) Moreover, notwithstanding McDonald's alleged ignorance, ACSC must have known Wysinger made the EEOC claim. This prevented ACSC from implementing its plan to reduce employee compensation. Jurors could find it had a motive to retaliate.
ACSC ignored Wysinger's repeated requests to discuss his health and commute problems. In 2000, ACSC's upper management did not respond to Wysinger's letters concerning the difficulties occasioned by his heart and lupus conditions. In 2001, his health was deteriorating. Wysinger made six to twelve requests to his immediate supervisor for some accommodation because of his health problems. The ACSC's human resources department did not respond to any of those requests. In 2002, Wysinger's doctor wrote to ACSC about Wysinger's health conditions. This evidence supports the jury's findings that ACSC refused to engage in an interactive process to discuss his disabilities and that it acted with malice. In late 2002 and early 2003, when the position was available in the Ventura office, Wysinger's immediate supervisor told him that ACSC's upper management would not allow him to have it. He candidly admitted to Wysinger, "I can't defend it . . . . I just have to do what I have to do." In denying ACSC's motion for a new trial, the trial court found that Wysinger had proven retaliatory animus from Kane and through the "chain of command . . . up the line to Mr. McDonald."
ACSC contends the court's instructions on employer retaliation are reversible error. We disagree.
The trial court instructed jurors: "Guy Wysinger claims that the [ACSC] retaliated against him for his complaint of age discrimination with the EEOC. To establish this claim, Mr. Wysinger must prove all of the following: 1) [t]hat he was an employee of the [ACSC]; 2) [t]hat he made a complaint to the EEOC; 3) [t]hat the [ACSC] took an adverse employment action against Mr. Wysinger; 4) [t]hat Mr. Wysinger's filing of an age discrimination complaint with the EEOC was a motivating reason for the [ACSC's] adverse employment action against him; 5) [t]hat Mr. Wysinger was harmed, and; 6) [t]hat the [ACSC's] retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing his harm."
ACSC requested an instruction on adverse employment action which the trial court rejected. That proposed instruction stated, among other things: "In deciding whether an adverse employment action has occurred, you must bear in mind than an adverse employment action connotes particular conduct. The employment action must be both detrimental and substantial. It must also result in a material change in the terms and conditions of employment."
Moreover, ACSC's actions had a substantial and material impact on the conditions of employment. The refusal to promote Wysinger is an adverse employment action under FEHA. (Yanowitz, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1055.) There was also a pattern of conduct, the totality of which constitutes an adverse employment action. This includes undeserved negative job reviews, reductions in his staff, ignoring his health concerns and acts which caused him substantial psychological harm. Kane's statements are patent evidence of retaliatory intent and his threats were unlawful under FEHA. In addition, the jury found ACSC's actions were more than retaliatory, they were egregious, as shown by the findings on punitive damages.
 Here the verdicts on the reasonable accommodations issue and the interactive process claim are not inconsistent. They involve separate causes of action and proof of different facts. Under FEHA, an employer must engage in a good faith interactive process with the disabled employee to explore the alternatives to accommodate the disability. (Gov. Code, ? 12940, subd. (n); Claudio v. Regents of the University of California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, 242 (Claudio); [employer may not fail to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodations].) "An employee may file a civil action based on the employer's failure to engage in the interactive process." (Claudio, supra, at p. 243.) Failure to engage in this process is a separate FEHA violation independent from an employer's failure to provide a reasonable disability accommodation, which is also a FEHA violation. (Gov. Code, ? 12940, subd. (m); Gelfo v. Lockeed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 61 (Gelfo); Claudio, supra, at p. 242; [employer may not fail to make a reasonable accommodation].) An employer may claim there were no available reasonable accommodations. But if it did not engage in a good faith interactive process, "it cannot be known whether an alternative job would have [157 Cal.App.4th 425] been found." (Claudio, supra, at p. 245.) The interactive process determines which accommodations are required. (Ibid.; Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 245, 263 (Jensen), fn. 7.) Indeed, the interactive process could reveal solutions that neither party envisioned.
Here the jury could find there was no failure to provide a required accommodation because the parties never reached the stage of deciding which accommodations were required. ACSC prevented this from happening by its refusal to engage in the interactive process.
Wysinger requested an accommodation involving his commute. ACSC argues that the jury's finding on the accommodation issue shows that it acted reasonably by not accommodating his request. But as Wysinger notes, during deliberations the jury asked whether it could consider the commute in deciding reasonable workplace accommodations. The court responded: "The work place includes any office of the [ACSC] where its employees do work for the company. It does not include the commute."
Wysinger testified that because of ACSC's conduct, he became depressed, "worn out" and unable to return to work. Karbelnig stated that Wysinger suffered from dysthymia, a form of depression, caused by his "feeling of betrayal" by his employer, stress and his emotional reaction to ACSC's actions. Rizzardi-Pearson opined that based on Wysinger's inability to work and his age, he would suffer a loss of future earnings of $280,129.
 ACSC contends the court improperly excluded relevant evidence about its financial condition. Evidence about a defendant's financial condition is necessary to determine punitive damages. (Adams v. Murakami (1991) 54 Cal.3d 105, 114 (Adams).) "'. . . [T]he absence of evidence of net worth precludes an appellate court from deciding whether an award might, for example, bankrupt the defendant.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.) Here ACSC's net worth was uncontradicted. Robinette said it was $353,791,000. Boyle agreed. Boyle said ACSC's profits are placed into a member equity fund.
During trial, the court said ACSC's effort to present evidence about how it acquires its wealth or holds it or uses it was remote from the issue of net worth. The trial court has broad discretion to exclude time-consuming evidence of limited probative value that is collateral to the issue of net worth. (Evid. Code, ? 352; Century Sur. Co., supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 962.) ACSC has not shown an abuse of discretion.
Here the court calculated the fees using the lodestar method. It said adjustments were made to the hours to account for inefficient or duplicative efforts. It determined the lodestar to be $889,810. It then elected to enhance the lodestar "by an upward multiplier of 1.1," for a total award of $978,791.
ACSC claims that the FEHA retaliation cause of action only involved proof that Wysinger made an age discrimination claim and ACSC retaliated. But the trial court could find that in proving retaliation Wysinger tried to show why he felt justified in filing the age discrimination claim. This required proof of his work history and evidence of age discrimination. "[A] competent attorney must do more at trial than present just the bare bones of [a] prima facie case . . . ." (Merriweather v. Family Dollar Stores of Indiana, Inc. (7th Cir. 1996) 103 F.3d 576, 584.) Moreover, Wysinger prevailed on the interactive process claim which involves proof of disability.
ACSC claims the award compensates Wysinger's counsel for time spent on unsuccessful issues. But "[w]here a lawsuit consists of related claims, and the plaintiff has won substantial relief, a trial court has discretion to award all or substantially all of the plaintiff's fees even if the court did not adopt each contention raised." (Downey Cares, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 997.) "To reduce the attorneys' fees of a successful party because he did not prevail on all his arguments, makes it the attorney, and not the defendant, who pays the costs of enforcing" the plaintiff's rights. (Sundance v. Municipal Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 268, 273; see also Greene v. Dillingham Const. N.A., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 418, 423; Beaty v. BET Holdings, Inc. (9th Cir 2000) 222 F.3d 607, 612 [party seeking reduction of a successful FEHA plaintiff's attorney fees must meet a high threshold].) ACSC has not shown an abuse of discretion.
Wysinger's appeal concerning an erroneous jury instruction is moot.
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to Wysinger.
Coffee, J., and Perren, J., concurred.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.