Jury Slams UCLA With $13M Gender Discrimination Verdict
A Los Angeles jury has order the University of California, Los Angeles to pay a $13 million verdict for allegedly retaliating against a female oncologist who complained about discrimination.
February 21, 2018 at 03:45 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A Los Angeles jury has order the University of California, Los Angeles to pay a $13 million verdict for allegedly retaliating against a female oncologist who complained about discrimination.
The verdict came down in Judge Michael Linfield's courtroom, with the jury finding that Dr. Lauren Pinter-Brown deserved $3 million in lost earnings, as well as $10 million in damages for emotional distress. The verdict was rendered Feb. 15 after about 14 days of trial.
Although the jury did not find in favor of Pinter-Brown's age discrimination claim, the jury found that UCLA retaliated against her and discriminated against her based on her gender.
Santa Monica, California, attorney Carney Shegerian of Shegerian & Associates, who represented Pinter-Brown, said that Pinter-Brown's testimony and demeanor was most likely what swayed the jury toward finding in her favor.
“She's incredibility bright, a world-renowned oncologist and impeccably honest,” Shegerian said. “She is just one of those people who is not going to spin anything. She was just telling it like she saw it, and she stood out that way to me as someone very different from the defense witnesses.”
Pinter-Brown started working at UCLA's medical center as the director of its lymphoma program in 2005. According to the plaintiff's counsel, she received exemplary peer reviews and awards throughout her tenure, and, up until 2013, was one of only two female faculty members in the program.
According to Pinter-Brown's counsel, the doctor began raising concerns about being harassed by a male colleague, but was subsequently targeted in several audits. Eventually she had her research privileges suspended and her title stricken, which, she contended, damaged her reputation.
Pinter-Brown's counsel said that, even after filing verbal and written complaints, UCLA made no significant efforts to fix the problem, and that she was forced to “play dead” at work to avoid additional conflicts. She eventually resigned from her position at UCLA in 2015.
According to Shegerian, UCLA argued at trial that Pinter-Brown mischaracterized the comments she claimed had been harassment, and contended the conduct were merely the result of her allegedly not getting along with the subordinate who she alleged had been harassing her. UCLA further contended that it properly handled her reports of harassment through an internal process.
The jury, which was made up of 10 woman and two men, found 10-2 in favor of Pinter-Brown's gender discrimination and retaliation claims.
Barbara Fitzgerald of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius represented UCLA. Fitzgerald did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Rejects Morgan Stanley Reconsideration Bid in Deferred Compensation Litigation
Transgender Woman Awarded $150K Default Judgment Against Corrections Officer for Alleged Assault
Legal Speak: A Convicted Felon is Coming to the White House. What Happens Now?
1 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250