Title: Roby v. McKesson Corp.
Citation: 47 Cal. 4th 686. modification: 48 Cal. 4th 31a
Docket Number: S149752, S149752n
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: February 11, 2010

Filed 2/10/10 (reposted same date with clerical correction) 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
CHARLENE J. ROBY, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S149752 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 3 C047617/C048799 
MCKESSON CORPORATION et al., 
) 
 
) 
Yolo County 
 
Defendants and Appellants. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. CV01573 
 
____________________________________) 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
 
THE COURT: 
 
The opinion filed November 30, 2009, and published at 47 Cal.4th 686, advance 
report, is modified as follows: 
At page 714, delete the two sentences of text in footnote 11, and substitute the 
following text in the footnote:  “We do not mean to suggest that in all FEHA 
discrimination cases involving attendance policies like the one here at issue, an award 
of punitive damages will always be supportable based on the employer’s mere 
adoption of such a policy.  It was the application of McKesson’s rigid attendance 
policy to terminate Roby that ultimately gave rise to McKesson’s liability for her 
wrongful discharge and the related punitive damages, not the mere adoption of the 
policy itself.  But with regard to the further assessment, under State Farm, of the 
degree of reprehensibility of McKesson’s conduct for the specific purpose of 
determining the maximum constitutionally-allowable award of punitive damages in 
this case, a broader focus is appropriate.  Because the midlevel managers who applied 
the strict attendance policy to terminate Roby lacked discretion to deviate from it under 
its very terms, we find the adoption of the policy itself most relevant to an assessment 
of the overall degree of reprehensibility of McKesson’s misconduct.” 
The modification does not affect the judgment.