Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)

DUE TO THE HARASSMENT PLAINTIFF NEARLY LOSES HER BABY AND IS THEN PLACED ON A MONTH-LONG MEDICAL LEAVE

Because of the harassment, Plaintiff is placed on bed rest after almost losing her baby. During the second meeting, Plaintiff starts to cramp and bleed relating to her pregnancy. She is concerned about her pregnancy and goes to the doctor that a short time later. She nearly loses her baby after having a threatened abortion also known as a threatened miscarriage. She is placed immediately on bed rest. The bed rest last for about a month, which Plaintiff provides all the doctors' notes for to Defendant.

Plaintiff is placed on about a month long medical leave because of her pregnancy. As stated above, Plaintiff's doctors place her on bed rest for about one month. She is also placed on further doctor's restrictions including no lifting over 10 lbs, no long walking, no vacuuming or strenuous activity. She is placed on a Pregnancy disability leave/FMLA leave by Defendant. Her first day back was around June 21, 2006.

.

Continue reading " Pregnant Employee Files Action For Sex Harassment, Part 5 of 19 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)

PLAINTIFF FINDS OUT SHE IS PREGNANT AND DISCLOSES HER PREGNANCY TO HER SUPERIORS AND MANAGEMENT AND THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE NEGATIVE REACTION

Plaintiff finds out she is pregnant and discloses her pregnancy to management. Plaintiff found out she was pregnant in May of 2006. In mid-May of 2006, Plaintiff informed her supervisors that she was pregnant. That included telling Paul Chan.

Immediately after disclosing her pregnancy Plaintiff is treated poorly because of her pregnancy. On May 12, 2006, Plaintiff is issued a verbal warning and placed on an action plan for telling employees she was pregnant. Defendant's admits that one of the reasons for the verbal discipline on May 12, 2006 had to do with Plaintiff discussing her pregnancy. There is no policy against telling employee about a pregnancy, yet Plaintiff was still disciplined. An employee should not be disciplined for telling people she is pregnant. Nonetheless, she was disciplined.

HER PREGNANCY HAD COMPLICATIONS FOR WHICH SHE REQUESTS ACCOMMODATION AND IS TREATED POORLY AS A RESULT

Plaintiff's pregnancy required some accommodations. Plaintiff was told by her doctor to avoid any heavy lifting of items over ten pounds. She informed her co-worker and management about that issue in late May of 2006. Her supervisors admit to knowing of Plaintiff's lifting request. Plaintiff is told by management to tell employees to lift items for her and do not lift herself. Nonetheless, employees refuse to help her. Her supervisors start to act very cold and distant to her right after she asked for the accommodation as well.

Within a few days of disclosing her pregnancy and asking for accommodation, Plaintiff is harassed by her supervisor and she is not wanted because of her pregnancy. In later May of 2006, Plaintiff is called into Mr. Davis's office. He accuses her of false things such as swearing at a customer. Ms. Smith never swore at a customer. Instead, she always treated each customer with great respect. In that conversation, Mr. Davis starts yelling at Plaintiff. He tells her that he does not want her there because she is pregnant and she should either quit or go on disability.

Mr. Davis yells at Plaintiff that she cannot handle the job because she is pregnant and that she should quit. Plaintiff responds that he is harassing her because she is pregnant and to stop yelling at her. He continues to yell at her, telling her to quit or go on disability over her pregnancy. Mr. Davis tells Plaintiff that pregnant women have hormones and attitudes and she should quit or go on disability.

Continue reading " Employee From Sacramento Sues For Workplace Harassment, Part 4 of 19 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)

THERE WERE NO PLANS TO FIRE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HER DISCLOSING HER PREGNANCY

For Plaintiff's entire employment, up to the time she disclosed she was pregnant, she was considered at least an average worker. Plaintiff started working for Whole Food in April of 2004. As detailed below, she disclosed her pregnancy in May of 2006. From the time of her hiring in April of 2004 through May of 2006, when she disclosed her pregnancy, she was considered at least an average employee. Further, an admitted fact is that there were no plans whatsoever to fire Plaintiff prior to her disclosing her pregnancy. No one told Mr. Davis they wanted Ms. Smith fired prior to disclosing her pregnancy. Her supervisors never recommended she be disciplined or fired prior to her disclosing her pregnancy. In fact, her supervisors testified they did not have any problems with her performance prior her disclosing her pregnancy.

Per company policy, most of Plaintiff's discipline record was removed and she is not even on a final warning by the time she disclosed her pregnancy. Defendant has a drop off policy, where after a period of time any discipline drops off and no longer counts against the employee for discipline purposes. How the policy works is any verbal or written discipline drops off after one year. And a final drops to a 2nd corrective after six months and drops off totally after another year. Under that policy, the 7/1/04, 10/26/04, 11/15/04, and the 5/25/05 counseling had completely dropped off. Further, the 12/22/04 and 2/21/05 counseling were dropped down to corrective counseling. At the time that Plaintiff discloses her pregnancy, she is not on any final warning.

Continue reading " Sex Harassment Claim Filed Against Roseville Employer, Part 3 of 19 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. PLAINTIFF WORKED FOR DEFENDANT SERVING CUSTOMERS
Plaintiff Gina Smith (hereinafter Plaintiff or Ms. Smith) worked for Defendant for multiple years in the Roseville store. Ms. Smith was hired in April 16, 2004. Her job was to work in prepared foods, serving Healthmart Foods customers various types of food, i.e., pizza, sandwiches, salad, soup, etc. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant until April 27, 2007.

PLAINTIFF WAS A GOOD EMPLOYEE DURING HER EMPLOYMENT WITH DEFENDANT, EARNING MULTIPLE MERIT BASED PAY RAISES

During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was a good employee. First, as an introductory employee she was voted on by her team members to work in prepared foods, which requires a positive two-thirds vote. For Plaintiff to be voted on, she had to be performing satisfactory, which she was. Ms. Smith earned three merit based pay raises during her tenure, moving from $9.00 an hour, to $9.25, then $10.25 and then $11.25. She received good performance reviews.

The decision maker admitted she was at least an average employee. Mr. Davis is the Store Leader. He made the decision to fire Ms. Smith. Mr. Davis admitted that from April 16, 2004 through May of 2006 (before he learned she was pregnant), she was an average employee.

During her employment with Defendant, Ms. Smith received favorable marks. First, she was told numerous times by all her supervisors, including Paul Chan that she did an excellent job and was a great employee. She was constantly complimented by staff, customers and her supervisors for her great customer service. Mr. Davis admits to getting positive feedback about Plaintiff's performance from her supervisor. Mr. Davis admits that Ms. Smith's customer service was good, at least at times.

Continue reading " Sacramento-Area Store Sued For Sex Harassment, Part 2 of 19 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff GINA SMITH (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff ) hereby submits her opposition to Defendant HEALTHMART FOODS (hereinafter Healthmart Foods or Defendant ) motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication of issues. This opposition is based on the fact that there are triable issues of fact as to each cause of action.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INTRODUCTION
This case involves an employee who was in no risk of losing her job for the first 26 months because she was doing a great job, who got pregnant, was constantly harassed about the pregnancy and fired for false reasons one day after her request for accommodation and complained of harassment without any investigation into her claims. Based on the evidence a triable issue of fact exists as to whether his firing was motivated by her complaints, accommodation requests and pregnancy and that she was harassed.

Plaintiff was considered a good employee prior to disclosing her pregnancy. Plaintiff worked for 26 months prior to disclosing her pregnancy. During that time she got 3 pay raises, multiple good reviews and praise for her good work. Also, the undisputed facts show there were no plans to fire her prior to her pregnancy and she was generally thought of as a good employee.

However, that changed after she disclosed her pregnancy. She disclosed her pregnancy in May of 2006. After that she was disciplined for talking about her pregnancy, told to quit because she is pregnant and they did not want pregnant employees, yelled at and cursed at.

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Sues For Workplace Discrimination, Part 1 of 19 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Mr. Santoro's Damages are Straightforward and Largely Undisputed
Defendants suggest that plaintiffs damages evidence will be highly complex and note that there were numerous doctors who treated plaintiff during the months he was hospitalized at Sacramento Medical Center, Mercy and the rehabilitation facilities. However, plaintiff’s damages evidence will be streamlined, straightforward and largely undisputed.

First, as noted above, plaintiff intends to call only one doctor from Sacramento Medical Center and one from Mercy, each of whom will explain the nature and extent of Mr. Santoro's head injury and the surgical procedures they performed. A third doctor, Dr. X from Children's Hospital, will explain the tendon release he performed on Mr. Santoro's legs. This is a very straightforward procedure. None on this testimony will be lengthy. While Mr. Santoro's injury was severe, none of the testimony about the injury or his treatment is particularly complex or difficult to understand. And, as noted, there is little dispute about the nature and extent of Mr. Santoro's injury - it is pretty clear cut. There is little disagreement among the parties' medical experts. The only other medical experts will be a neurologist, a neuropsychologist and a life care planner.

Thus, defendants' concern about complexity or an extensive number of witnesses regarding damages will not materialize in reality. A single trial will be efficient and take far less court and juror time than a two-phase trial.

Continue reading " Sacramento Man Seeks Damages From Police Dept. For Brain Injury, Part 9 of 9 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Ends of Justice/Prejudice
Defendants speculate that a single trial may confuse the liability issues or result in prejudice in that a jury might look past liability. However, defendants cite no empirical evidence suggesting that trying liability and damages in a single trial would cause any prejudice to defendants. Certainly the fact that Mr. Santoro suffered a severe injury is no reason to bifurcate. Serious injury cases are tried in the courts of Sacramento County and other counties routinely without bifurcation and with no evidence of prejudice to defendants.

Jurors are routinely instructed they must find liability before considering damages and they appear to do so with little problem. Defendants offer speculation, but no evidence to the contrary. Further, as discussed above, the jury in this case would be aware of the seriousness of the injury in the liability phase in any event. The issue will be discussed in voir dire, as will many issues relating to Mr. Santoro' injury and damages, for there is only one opportunity to voir dire the jury before it is empaneled. See Bly-Magee v. Budget Rent-A-Car 24 Cal.App.4th 318, 332-344 (1994).

Further, the fact that Mr. Santoro suffered a fractured skull, a severe brain injury and was in a coma for weeks, etc. will be admissible on the amount of force used, to show that the amount of force used was unreasonable and excessive. Similarly, Mr. Santoro's injury must be discussed to some extent by medical professionals to explain to the jury why Mr. Santoro's memory loss is so extensive and, importantly, that his inability to recall any part of this incident is real and not feigned.

Continue reading " Severely Injured Sacramento Man Sues Police Officer, Part 8 of 9 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

B. Economy and Efficiency
The above discussion highlights the fact that far from promoting economy and efficiency, bifurcation would add significantly to the time and expense of litigating this case and would add significantly to the logistical difficulties of scheduling and re-scheduling witnesses, including experts, some of whom will have to testify twice.

In terms of economy, there is little question that a second trial will occur in this matter, particularly given the fact that comparative fault will apply. Given the number of procedures and training guidelines violated by Officer Doe and the extreme amount of force he applied to Mr. Santoro under very benign circumstances, it is most unlikely that a jury would not assign some percentage of fault to Officer Doe, if not a substantial percentage.

Not only would a second trial require several witnesses to testify twice, second opening statements, closing arguments, jury instructions and jury deliberations would be necessary. This would extend this trial well beyond the time necessary to conduct a single trial. This would not serve the goal of judicial economy at all. A single trial will not be much longer than a bifurcated liability phase, particularly since there is very little dispute among the experts about Mr. Santoro's damages. Indeed, the defense neuropsychologist has recently testified that Mr. Santoro has greater deficits and will need more care during his life than plaintiffs expert.

Continue reading " Saramento Beating Victim Suffers Brain Injury, Part 7 of 9 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

A. CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES
As mentioned, plaintiff intends to call one of the neurosurgeons who treated him at Sacramento Medical Center and another who treated him at Mercy. Both of these surgeons performed operations on Mr. Santoro at different times and for different reasons. Both will testify about the extent and severity of the head injury Mr. Santoro sustained, as well as the fact that an extreme amount of force was required to cause this level of injury.

This evidence is a critical piece of plaintiff's proof in the liability phase. One of plaintiffs causes of action is for battery by Officer Doe. The crux of this claim is whether the force used by the officer was unreasonable or excessive under the circumstances. See, e.g., CACI Instruction No. 1305; Edson v. City of Aneheim, 63 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1272 [in action for battery against a police officer, plaintiff has burden of proving unreasonable force by the officer].

The nature and extent of the injury, as well as testimony about the amount of force that would be necessary to cause such an injury, is relevant and admissible on this issue.

Of course, both of these doctors will have additional testimony on the issue of damages. Bifurcation would therefore require that both testify twice, which would be highly inconvenient and unnecessarily expensive.

Continue reading " Beating Victim In Sacramento Files Claim Against Sacramento Police Dept., Part 6 of 9 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

THE COURT SHOULD NOT ORDER BIFURCATION ON ITS OWN MOTION
Although defendants motion is untimely as discussed above, the Court retains discretion to order bifurcation on its own motion at any time when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby . CCP §§ 598; see also, CCP § 1048(b).

In the present case, none of these ends would be served by conducting two separate trials, one on liability and one on damages, for several reasons to be discussed below. First, however, it should be noted that plaintiff has no intention of calling an extensive number of the physicians who treated him. Indeed, Plaintiff plans to call only one of the doctors who treated him at Sacramento Medical Center and only one who treated him at Mercy Hospital. Each will be relatively short - no more than one hour of direct testimony and probably less. Moreover, as discussed further below, each of these doctors will be testifying on the issue of liability in any event, and would have to come back to testify a second time if the case were bifurcated.

Continue reading " Sacramento Plaintiff Files Action For Brain Injuries, Part 5 of 9 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS UNTIMELY
Code of Civil Procedure § 598 provides that a motion to bifurcate brought by a party must be noticed and set for hearing far enough in advance of the trial so that an order for bifurcation, if appropriate, may be obtained no later than the pretrial conference or, in other cases, no later than 30 days before the trial date. C.C.P. § 598;

Although the Court retains discretion to order bifurcation on its own motion, the notice and hearing deadline provided in CCP § 598 is no small matter. For example, in the present case, plaintiffs counsel have been preparing for trial and scheduling witnesses, including expert witnesses, for a single trial. Defendants never mentioned or hinted that they desired bifurcation until new counsel entered the case and this motion was filed. Notably, the motion was filed with the trial date imminent and with a hearing date for the motion on the trial date itself, June 6, 2008. This is well beyond the deadline for such motions specified in CCP § 598.

Equally significant is the fact that the Rules of Court provide that the issue of bifurcation, if desired or applicable, should be taken up months before the trial, at the Case Management Conference. (See California Rules of Court, Rule3.727(10).

In their Case Management Conference Statement filed for the Case Management Conference on June 20, 2007 nearly one year ago, Defendants mentioned nothing about seeking bifurcation, and specifically left blank the section of the CMC Statement that is to be checked where a party is contemplating bifurcation. Nor did defendants suggest they would seek bifurcation at either of the Case Management Conferences (June 20, 2007 and August 31, 2007). Clearly, the rules contemplate that such a motion be heard and ruled upon well before trial.

Continue reading " Injured Sacramento Man Files Claim Against Police Officer, Part 4 of 9 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Mr. Santoro suffered a severe skull fracture, which caused substantial bleeding, bruising and swelling in his brain. He was in a coma, near death, for nearly a month. He had two operations in an attempt to relieve the bleeding, swelling and fluid in his brain. In the second operation it was necessary to remove parts of the temporal and frontal lobes of his brain. A total of ten centimeters of brain tissue had to be removed from Mr. Santoro' frontal lobes (referred to as a lobectomy, the equivalent of a lobotomy. While Mr. Santoro' life was saved, he has sustained permanent brain damage and will need life-long care. He was hospitalized for a total of over eight months and has incurred well over $1.5 million in medical bills. He has not returned to work and now lives with his parents and brothers, all of whom have assisted in his care.

At the very minimum this is a case of comparative fault and plaintiffs d images will clearly have to be litigated.

Earlier in the evening, Mr. Santoro and one of his friends, Paul Thomas, agreed to meet after work Downtown to watch the Rose Bowl football game which, that year, was the national championship game played in the evening between U.S.C. and Texas. A third friend, Danny Jones, joined them later in the evening.

Mr. Santoro and his friends had dinner and watched the game at an East Sac. restaurant then moved to a pub next door after dinner to watch the remainder of the game. Mr. Santoro had several beers over the course of several hours, but was not drunk and was not driving.

At approximately 11:30 p.m. Mr. Santoro and his friends were walking to Mr.Thomas' car intending to go home. As they walked along Market Street two men, unknown to Mr. Santoro and his friends, were walking behind them and began harassing them. Mr. Santoro and his friends crossed Market Street hoping to avoid these men but the men followed them across the street. By this time Mr.Thomas, who was walking faster, was several feet ahead.

The two men continued harassing Mr. Santoro and Mr. Hernandez and eventually started a light with them. Mr.Thomas returned to assist and saw Mr. Santoro on the ground with one of the assailants on top of Mr. Santoro. He pulled the man off of Mr. Santoro.

Officer Doe at this point drove to the scene and hit his siren as he pulled up. The fighting stopped and Mr. Santoro began jogging away.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY OF FACTS cont.
Defendants' own police procedures expert has testified that it was improper for Officer Doe to fail to notify dispatch of what he had upon arrival. Officer Doe himself has testified that he was out of his car, in the presence of five unknown males, for about five seconds when one of the men (plaintiff James Santoro) turned and began to lope away. Officer Doe testified that within one second he started to chase Santoro without knowing who the aggressors were and knowing very little about any of the five involved. The crime Officer Doe was investigating was a simple misdemeanor P.C. § 415 (fighting in public).

Officer Doe ran right past the four other men, including the two who instigated the fight. In doing so, he violated proper police protocols and clear training guidelines.

Officer Doe ran about 100 feet toward Mr. Santoro. Witnesses will testify that Officer Doe yelled stop once or twice, and nothing else. Officer Doe claims he yelled numerous times. James Santoro, complying with Officer Doe' requests, stops and turns around. As he does so, Officer Doe hits Mr. Santoro in the chest with both hands, with great force. Mr. Santoro flies backward.

Officer Doe hit Mr. Santoro with such force that Mr. Santoro' body flew into the air. According to Officer Doe and an independent eye witness who was six feet away, Mr. Santoro' legs flew up in front of his body, which was now parallel to the ground, flying backward. Mr. Santoro was unable to break his fall in any way. His back hit the sidewalk and his head snapped back onto the pavement with great force, causing a loud smack which, according to the eye witness, sounded like a melon smashing onto the pavement. Mr. Santoro' head bounced up and smacked onto the pavement a second time due to the force with which he was hit.

.

Continue reading " Sacramento Police Officer Responsible For Brain Injury To Local Man, Part 2 of 9 " »

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this brain injury case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Liability from Damages

INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff, James Santoro, is a 28 year old life long resident of Sacramento and law abiding member of the community. Before this incident he had never been arrested or had any negative contact with law enforcement. His family has been in Sacramento for three generations. His father and mother were both born in Sacramento and come from families that have always been hard working, law abiding members of the Sacramento community.

At the time of the incident Mr. Santoro was working as a file clerk for a large law firm in downtown Sacramento. Mr. Santoro had been working there for approximately two years and was an exemplary employee, well liked and well respected by all members of the firm. Prior to working for his current firm worked as a file clerk for another well-respected large law firm in Sacramento.

Sacramento police officer John Doe joined the police department in 2002 and completed his POST training and his field training with SPD in 2003. His training included training in patrol techniques, crimes in progress and foot pursuits.

January 4, 2006 was the night of the national championship football game at the Rose Bowl between U.S.C. and Texas. Many people were in the East Sac. area of downtown Sacramento to watch the game at one of the many restaurants and bars in the area.

Continue reading " Sacramento Man Suffers Brain Injury At Hands Of Police, Part 1 of 9 " »