Jury Rings Up ‘No Sale’ in Firing

One day after a judge twice rejected verdicts favoring a woman who claimed that she had been unfairly fired by Alpha Beta, jurors Tuesday returned a third verdict in the case--this time in favor of the grocery store chain.

Hours after the bizarre conclusion, former Alpha Beta Vice President Ruth Thomas, 63, still could not talk about the case she lost without repeatedly breaking into tears. She said she was confused--and angry.

“Every one of the jurors said to me, ‘We know they mistreated you, we know they were malicious, and you should have been compensated for this,’ ” Thomas said Tuesday.

Jurors returned two separate $500,000 verdicts in Thomas’ favor Monday. But Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard J. Beacom found each to be inconsistent and called jurors back Tuesday morning to continue deliberations.

Jury foreman Fred N. Rowe of Costa Mesa said jurors found the case difficult and the instructions confusing. Rowe said jurors believed that Thomas had been mistreated. But after trying twice, they concluded there was no legal basis for awarding her money damages.

“We just wanted to make a statement that there was something there they (Alpha Beta) did wrong,” said Rowe, referring to Monday’s two $500,000 verdicts.

“And we still feel that they did. But there’s no preponderance of proof to back it up. We couldn’t levy a fine on Alpha Beta for their malicious acts. So there was nothing left to do,” Rowe said Tuesday.

Asked if the final verdict meant vindication for the firm, Alpha Beta lawyer Michael Hood said, “Ultimately, all I can say is that the jury found there was nothing wrong in the termination.”

Thomas, the first woman to become a vice president of the chain, lost her job in 1983 in a management shuffle after a corporate takeover that reduced the number of vice presidents from 19 to seven. With a spotless work record, she contended that her fellow executives used the reorganization as a pretext for firing her from her $70,000-a-year position.

The case turned on whether Alpha Beta had violated Thomas’ unwritten employment contract by not having a good cause for termination, or failed to deal with her fairly. The so-called covenant of good faith and fair dealing has been imposed on employers by California judges since a landmark ruling in 1980 triggered an expansion in the rights of non-union workers.

The two intertwined legal doctrines appeared to be at the heart of jurors’ confusion.

Rowe said the jury thought from the beginning that Thomas personally had been mistreated. But jurors also thought that layoffs as a result of a general reorganization are a legitimate basis for terminating employment.

Each verdict Monday fixed $500,000 in damages for Alpha Beta’s failure to deal with Thomas fairly, but in neither case did jurors conclude that Alpha Beta lacked good cause for termination. Beacom basically ruled that no damages could be awarded unless the termination was made without a legitimate reason.

“That’s not good law, it’s not what the law says, it’s not good sense, either, and it’s certainly not fair,” said John C. McCarthy, Thomas’ attorney. McCarthy said an appeal is being considered.

“The jury instructions were so slanted for the defense that the result was almost compelled,” McCarthy said. “This allows an employer to be above judicial review for its decisions to terminate a 25-year employee.”

Alpha Beta attorney Hood found Beacom’s instructions proper.

“You have to find, first of all, that the termination was wrongful. The jury found there was good cause for the termination. Therefore, the judge’s ruling that there was no breach (by Alpha Beta of its duty to Thomas) was correct.”

Tuesday’s decision was actually the fourth verdict in two trials that have been conducted on Thomas’ claims. Last year, jurors voted eight to four in Thomas’ favor in the first wrongful termination trial. Because nine jurors out of 12 must agree, the result was a rare mistrial of a non-criminal case.

Thomas, who lives in San Clemente with her husband, said she faces a tough decision on whether to pay for an appeal and “exhaust everything that I have just to prove a point.”

“This thing is so horrible,” Thomas said. “I gave 25 years of my life to this company. Never one time, never once, was my performance ever called into question.

“I loved that company,” she said. “And now I look back and see what? Half of my life given to that company? For what?”