Following Our Suit and More : State Far From Alone in Termination Cases

Lawsuit-happy California has long been known as the nation’s litigation capital. But when it comes to costly wrongful-termination claims and related employment suits that bosses dread, other parts of the country appear to be catching up.

In California, the employment arena “is clearly less litigious than it was,” said James N. Dertouzos, a senior economist at Rand Corp. think tank in Santa Monica who has researched employment litigation.

The trend has evolved gradually. It probably dates to December 1988, when a California Supreme Court ruling curbed the damages that could be won by some unfairly fired workers. The main impact was a reduction in lawsuits by lower-paid workers.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1991 narrowed the employment law gap between California and the rest of the country. By increasing the damages available to plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases, the landmark law made federal courts almost as attractive a venue for angry ex-employees as the California courts.

Perhaps most important, many California employers are revamping their workplace practices to prevent the kinds of disputes that lead to costly lawsuits.

“We’re probably seeing fewer really egregious cases of wrongful termination and discrimination,” said Margaret S. Henry, a Santa Monica lawyer who represents workers in employment disputes.

Inasmuch as more than 90% of employment cases are settled confidentially or dismissed before ever reaching a jury, reliable figures documenting employment litigation trends are scarce.

Still, a fresh piece of evidence supports the notion that the legal climate nationally has gotten more like California’s--or, in some cases, possibly even more freewheeling. According to a new survey, the median jury award in California last year for workers who claimed they were unjustly fired or forced to quit was $210,717, or 23% lower than the norm for the rest of the nation.

To be sure, for reasons that remain unclear, the survey showed big increases in wrongful-dismissal-related awards everywhere. Verdicts in California climbed by 38% from the year before, while they shot up 66%, to $274,157, in the other 49 states, according to the publishing firm that conducted the survey, Jury Verdict Research of Horsham, Pa.

What’s more, Henry said, juries in such locales as downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco remain more likely than their counterparts elsewhere across the country to award large verdicts “in righteous cases” of wrongful discharge.

Henry should know: She won an $11.1-million jury award last year for a black Nigerian national, Akintunde I. Ogunleye, who claimed that he was forced to quit as a Pitney Bowes Inc. salesman because of racial discrimination and harassment. Jury Verdict Research said that was the biggest jury award in California last year for a worker found to be unjustly fired or forced to quit.

Still, Ogunleye--like most workers who win big in court--apparently received much less than the jury wanted to grant. Although lawyers declined to comment on the case, sources familiar with the litigation said he eventually agreed to settle for a smaller sum rather than continue to fight in court.

A Telecommuting First

Telecommuting is spreading more slowly than experts once predicted. One of the main obstacles: Bosses who want to keep an eye on their staffers and, as such, don’t want them working from home or other remote locations.

But a federal court jury in San Francisco, in a novel decision, has provided what could be a helpful push to the telecommuting trend.

Last month it awarded Michael Faircloth, a labor relations specialist for Bay Area Rapid Transit, the right to do his job from home one day a week, along with $90,000 in damages.

Faircloth, who suffers back and neck problems, had asked for the accommodation to get some relief from his chronic pain. He sought to avoid the discomfort of his one-hour commute, and he wanted the freedom to lie down when possible, such as when he was on work phone calls.

BART, which is challenging the jury’s decision, has argued that Faircloth needs to be in the office to do his job properly.

But Faircloth’s lawyer, Gail F. Flatt of Santa Rosa, countered that much of what he does is telephone and computer work that doesn’t require face-to-face contact.

Jack Nilles, a Brentwood-based telecommuting consultant retained by Flatt as an expert witness, said he knows of no other case in which a worker was awarded the right to telecommute. He predicted that the jury’s finding will prod more employers to consider telecommuting as a way to accommodate disabled workers.

Times staff writer Stuart Silverstein can be reached by phone at (213) 237-7887 or by e-mail at stuart.silverstein@latimes.com