 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Palmer v. GTE California Incorporated1/30/2002
to receive an award, and then kept the award in his drawer for three months before giving it to her. He also purportedly misplaced her 15-year service award and did not formally present it to her when two male workers received 15-year service awards in a formal presentation at about the same time. She also contends she was denied training opportunities and favorable work assignments.
Palmer experienced prolonged depression, insomnia, and anxiety and suffered severe weight loss beginning after the conference room incident.
b. Pretrial and Trial Proceedings
Palmer sued GTE, Ast, and Lee in April 1995 alleging causes of action for sexual harassment and gender discrimination under FEHA, false imprisonment, and other causes of action. The court granted summary judgment for Ast and Lee in September 1998.
A jury trial commenced in January 1999. The court instructed the jury on false imprisonment and harassment. The jury returned special verdicts finding that GTE had falsely imprisoned Palmer and harassed her based on her gender in a manner that was so severe and pervasive that a reasonable person would have found the workplace to be a hostile and abusive environment. The jury also found that GTE had not exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment from occurring and was guilty of fraud, oppression, or malice on both counts. It awarded damages of $175,000 for false imprisonment and $615,000 for harassment.
The court granted a non-suit on punitive damages because Palmer was not prepared to present evidence promptly after the first phase of trial, and stated that there was no evidence of ratification by a managing agent so it would not have allowed punitive damages in any event.
3. Posttrial Proceedings
The court entered judgment for Palmer on February 24, 1999. Palmer served a file-stamped copy of the judgment by mail on GTE on February 26. GTE's counsel telephoned Palmer's counsel on March 3 to express GTE's position that service of the file-stamped copy was not a proper notice of entry of judgment for purposes of commencing the time to file posttrial motions pursuant to Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51. The court clerk also called Palmer's counsel that day to state the same.
Palmer served a separate document entitled "Notice of Entry of Judgment" on March 9, 1999, and filed it on March 10 together with a proof of service. Also attached to the document was a proof of service pertaining to the service on February 26 of the file-stamped copy of the judgment.
GTE filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on March 24, 1999, 26 days after Palmer's service of a file-stamped copy of the judgment. The court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the harassment count but denied the motion on the false imprisonment count, granted a new trial on the harassment count on the grounds of excessive damages and insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, and granted a new trial on the false imprisonment count on the ground of excessive damages conditional upon Palmer's rejection of a remittitur, in an order filed on May 3, 66 days after Palmer's service of a file-stamped copy of the judgment.
Palmer moved to strike the order on the ground that the motions and the order were untimely. The court denied the motion to strike in June 1999 based on Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc., supra, 15 Cal.4th 51. Palmer then petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to invalidate the order. We denied the petition in Aug
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|