Race discrimination RIF 1.8 million dollar verdict reported; google ads send readers right to plaintiff’s lawyers

Law.com reports on a $1.8 million verdict from an Alameda County, Calif., jury to a Filipina executive who claimed race discrimination in termination.

How much publicity is given to cases resulting in defense verdicts? Not to mention low-dollar settlements?

On the latter point, employers routinely request confidentiality clauses in settlements, so word doesn’t get out and make them an easy mark for their employees and for plaintiff’s attorneys. But wouldn’t it possibly be in their interest to allow disclosure, for example, when they settle a case with an initial demand of $2 million for a mere $10,000 (don’t laugh, it happens).

(Just a thought challenging the conventional wisdom.)

Here’s the story: “Former Sybase Exec Handed $1.8M Racial Bias Verdict” (by Justin M. Norton for the Recorder)

A few interesting facts:

1) The plaintiff was allegedly terminated in a RIF. She reapplied for two new jobs with the same company for lower pay and fewer responsibilities but was not interviewed.

The mere claim that termination was in a RIF is not a complete defense. In addition to possible challenge to the bona fides of the RIF, one must be prepared for challenge to the method of selection of employees for termination vs. retention. And, as this case shows, that may include challenge to failure to place in an alternative position.

Another lesson: conventional wisdom says people will be so unhappy with lower pay and fewer responsibilities that they should not even be considered. Here’s a novel thought (challenging conventional wisdom left and right today!): Why not let employees decide for themselves what is an acceptable job?

2) The plaintiff was a group director in the human resources department.

Sorry, friends, but HR people can be among the most litigious when terminated. If knowledge of the law and company procedures is coupled with access to some closet skeletons about HR practices, it it can be explosive.

3) The autogenerated google ads in the margin of the screen for this article appear to all be for plaintiff’s discrimination lawyers.

Thanks to google, employees can read about a juicy verdict like this and click right over to an attorney to consult regarding all their grievances.

Sphere: Related Content