Court Ruling Bars Award to Heirs for Pain and Suffering

The family of a female Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy who died before her sexual harassment suit against the department went to trial cannot be compensated for her pain and suffering, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The ruling is likely to have the most impact on elderly and infirm plaintiffs who sue governmental agencies for civil rights violations. A legal scholar close to the case predicted that defendants will be tempted to drag out litigation in hopes that plaintiffs will die before verdicts are reached.

At the same time, he said, Thursday’s decision may shift many such cases to federal courts, where the rules are sometimes more favorable to plaintiffs.

The sheriff’s deputy who filed the lawsuit was killed in a car accident just before her case went to trial. She was survived by a husband and four children. As a result of the high court ruling, her attorneys will now evaluate whether her lawsuit is worth the expense of a trial or whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision “means that horrible conduct goes unpunished because of the terrible twist of fate,” said Pasadena lawyer Barbara Hadsell, whose firm represents the deputy’s family.

In California personal injury cases, compensation for pain and suffering, including emotional distress, does not go to a plaintiff’s family if the victim dies before the lawsuit has concluded. But two lower courts had ruled that the deputy’s family should collect any such jury award because she had claimed federal civil rights violations.

In such cases against a government defendant, a plaintiff’s damages may be largely limited to pain and suffering and still run into the millions of dollars. Because the federal civil rights law is intended to deter bad behavior and provide compensation, the damages should survive a victim’s death even in state court, the lower courts had ruled.

But the California Supreme Court said there is no exception for civil rights cases.

“All employees have the right to be treated with dignity and to work in an environment free of ‘severe or pervasive’ abuse directed at them because of their gender,” Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for a unanimous court. The Legislature, however, has determined that pain and suffering compensation belongs only to the victim, not to his or her estate, the justice said.

Former Sheriff’s Deputy Patricia Cordova alleged in her 1993 lawsuit that several supervisors and colleagues groped her and asked for sex, made remarks about her appearance and posted derogatory cartoons about her in the station.

She said she suffered stress-related ailments, including sleeplessness, nightmares, stomach cramps, diarrhea and headaches. Her doctors finally advised her never to work for the Sheriff’s Department again, she said. She left the department in 1991 after nearly six years.

Loyola Law School professor Karl Manheim, who supported the plaintiffs on behalf of a group called Protection and Advocacy Inc., said the ruling will encourage defendants in civil rights cases to delay proceedings when the victim is elderly or infirm.

He said California is an anomaly, one of only a handful of states where emotional distress compensation need not be paid if the victim dies before a verdict is reached. “If I were a defendant or defense counsel and the plaintiff on the other side was infirm or elderly, you would want to drag the case out as long as possible,” said Manheim, who represents a nonprofit group that provides legal services for institutionalized disabled and elderly people.

The ruling also has created a split between the federal and state courts because some federal judges do not deny pain and suffering damages to a victim’s estate, Manheim said. “This is a message to every plaintiff’s attorney in the state that you have to bring your case in federal court and not in state court,” he said.

Roger Granbo, principal deputy Los Angeles county counsel, declined to comment on the allegations against the Sheriff’s Department. He said he was pleased with the state high court’s decision.

“This case is worth a lot less than it was before this decision came down,” he said.

Kennard said the ruling will not negate the deterrence value of the federal Civil Rights Act because damages still can be collected in state court for the victim’s economic losses and for punitive purposes.

But sexual harassment victims often have relatively small economic damages. Cordova received disability payments, which covered many of her expenses. Because she was suing the government, she could not collect punitive damages.

“The main thing this [ruling] shows is the justices don’t really understand the practical realities of everyday litigation,” Hadsell said. “They kept saying she will get something, but the earning loss value pales to the amount of suffering she went through while carrying out her duties as a sworn officer of this county.”