Ex-Subway Inspector Wins $1.38 Million : Court: Man who blew whistle on Red Line flaws said Parsons Dillingham prevented him from getting another job. Firm has denied the charges.

A former Metro Rail tunnel quality control inspector, who blew the whistle on construction flaws and later triggered an FBI investigation, has been awarded $1.38 million by a Superior Court jury in a lawsuit against his former employer.

Ben Pate, an inspector with more than 35 years experience in heavy construction and mining, sued Parsons Dillingham Construction Management, alleging that his supervisor prevented him from getting another job after he was laid off from the firm overseeing work on the Red Line subway.

A Pasadena jury awarded Pate $460,000 for loss of wages this week. Under the labor code, that amount is tripled, bringing the total to $1.38 million.

“They blackballed me and I think we proved that,” said Pate, 64.

Richard Morallo, a spokesman for Parsons Dillingham, declined to discuss the case. But he said in a prepared statement: “We strongly believe that the labor code . . . was not violated and that the verdict against Parsons Dillingham was not supported by the facts and the law.”

Morallo said Parsons Dillingham attorneys plan to move for a new trial.

Pate’s suit had alleged several other causes of action, including wrongful discharge and age discrimination. But those were dismissed.

Earlier this year, Parsons Dillingham agreed to pay the MTA $1.4 million for studies and inspection costs associated with repairs of subway tunnels, which were built with concrete that was thinner than specified. The firm had supervised the construction work.

As a senior inspector at Parsons Dillingham, Pate oversaw the installation of an impermeable membrane in the subway tunnel that was designed to keep gas, toxic substances and water in the surrounding soils from seeping into the concrete tunnel and stations.

On several occasions, Pate refused to approve what he believed was “shoddy and improper workmanship,” according to court records.

Parsons Dillingham has denied this allegation.

Pate was laid off in April, 1991, two years after he was hired. During his stint with Parsons, he received merit raises and “numerous commendations” and “received no complaints, reprimands, warnings or any other indication whatsoever that any aspect of his performance was less than acceptable,” according to court records.

*

In his lawsuit, Pate alleged that when he applied for work with other companies involved with the subway construction, his former supervisor “intentionally and with malice misrepresented to prospective employers that (Pate) was not qualified.”

Larry Roberts, Pate’s attorney, said he believed the jury was persuaded about the merits of Pate’s case after he presented an eyewitness who heard that supervisor talking on the phone with Pate’s prospective employer and a deposition from the potential employer describing his conversation.

“A previous employer cannot prevent a person from getting a job,” Roberts said. “The verdict was very fair.”