ORANGE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE : An Appeal With Little Appeal

California appears perilously close to throwing good money after bad in appealing a $1.35-million judgment in a wrongful-termination suit.

The attorney general’s office said it will appeal last month’s Superior Court jury award to former Cal State Fullerton volleyball Coach Jim Huffman. The state also was ordered to pay $300,000 to Huffman’s attorneys.

The underlying facts in the case make it easy to see how the jury reached its decision. And the problem with any appeal is that a judgment accrues interest at 7% a year, meaning the state is now running a bill of nearly $10,000 a month in this case. Huffman’s lawyers said their fees could grow by $200,000 by the time the appeal is settled. If the state lost again, it would have to pay that bill as well.

Huffman coached the women’s volleyball team for three years, but in January of 1992 the school announced it was dropping the sport. Huffman and others quickly filed suit against the university, contending it was discriminating against women and thus violating state laws.

On March 20, 1992, a Friday, a Superior Court judge ordered the university to reinstate the program. On March 23, a Monday, the school fired Huffman. At the trial, one witness testified that on the day the court ordered the sport reinstated, the university’s vice president for academic affairs said the school must “get rid of” Huffman because he had caused so much aggravation.

The university said it had decided to dismiss Huffman months earlier but delayed action to let him and the sport leave campus together, in an effort to make the termination less of a stigma for Huffman. However, a juror said the university produced no “paper trail” to back up its argument.

The Cal State University system is strapped for cash and has been raising student fees. The interest expense in this case would cover tuition for a good number of students. A school spokesman said the decision on appealing is up to the attorney general’s office. However, both should look at this matter again and decide whether simple fairness, plus fiscal prudence, indicate it is time to pay the penalty.