After three years of litigation and a two-week trial, a California jury found that a plaintiff had been discriminated against by her former employer, the Department of State Hospitals (DSH). The jury awarded the plaintiff roughly $37,000 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for her pain and suffering. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a limited new trial regarding non-economic damages and granted DSH's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, striking the award for lost health insurance benefits. The plaintiff appealed the denial of an award of damages for her mental suffering and emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life and grief, and humiliation, depression, and anxiety.
Background
The plaintiff worked for DSH as a temporary pre-licensed psychiatric technician between January 2, 2020 and January 24, 2020.
DSH houses patients who are involuntarily committed to medical treatment, including criminal defendants deemed incompetent to stand trial, patients found not guilty by reason of insanity, and offenders with mental disorders, among others. Pre-licensed psychiatric technicians provide nursing and psychiatric care to DSH's disabled patients and have physical job duties like crisis intervention and restraining patients who pose a risk to themselves or others.
As part of the hiring process, the plaintiff underwent a pre-employment health screening, and although she disclosed having asthma, she responded “no” to all other screening questions. However, she’d been previously diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder following a 2017 sexual assault by a patient inmate at a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) hospital in Stockton, where she was working as a certified nursing assistant. After the assault, she experienced panic attacks with trouble breathing and went on medical leave.
On January 2nd, when she started working with DSH, she was still on medical leave with CDCR. In fact, on January 3rd, she submitted a doctor's note to CDCR stating that she couldn’t return to work before February 23rd and that she was unable to work with prison inmates.
DSH wasn’t aware of the plaintiff's leave status until January 22nd, when CDCR informed DSH of this as part of their communication exchange concerning employment transfers. In a records search, DSH discovered that the plaintiff had sustained an injury to her “nervous system,” which was inconsistent with her representations on her DSH health questionnaire. On January 24th, DSH fired her.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against DSH, asserting claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for mental disability discrimination and physical disability discrimination, as well as claims for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, and failure to prevent discrimination. The court granted summary judgment in favor of DSH on the claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive process; the plaintiff dismissed her claim for failure to prevent discrimination on the first day of trial. Her remaining claims for mental and physical disability discrimination were tried to a jury, which found in her favor on her mental disability discrimination claim only, awarding her roughly $29,000 in lost earnings, $8,000 in lost health insurance, but nothing for pain and suffering.
Discussion
On appeal, the plaintiff asserted the trial court erred by denying her new trial motion on noneconomic damages because the noneconomic damage award of $0 was inadequate as a matter of law and not supported by the evidence.
Judge Tara Desautels explained that where a party claims inadequate damages or insufficient evidence, a new trial won’t be granted unless the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision. The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion and is accorded great deference on appeal.
The plaintiff sought noneconomic damages for 16 months from January 2020 through May 2021, when she obtained new employment. Five witnesses testified regarding her alleged noneconomic damages, including her treating psychologist, her qualified medical evaluator, and DSH's expert psychologist.
The plaintiff said the termination was devastating. From 2018 through 2021, she sought therapy. According to her treating psychologist, the termination was detrimental to her mental health and caused loss of confidence and self-esteem. The psychologist testified that the plaintiff “seemed to regress” after termination, and “her symptoms” from the 2017 assault “came back.”
DSH’s expert psychologist concluded that the plaintiff's sexual assault was a “major” source of her depression but that “being bothered is not the same as having a mental disorder.”
In closing argument, the plaintiff's counsel suggested the jury award between $50,000 and $150,000 for “mental suffering and emotional distress” and between $150,000 and $450,000 for “loss of enjoyment of life and grief” and “humiliation, depression, and anxiety.” However, based on an independent review of the evidence, the Court of Appeals found no reason to disturb the jury's verdict with respect to noneconomic damages.
First, the verdict was not inadequate as a matter of law, Judge Desautels opined. Here, the plaintiff didn’t allege that the termination caused her physical injury, nor was there undisputed evidence the plaintiff “necessarily” endured pain and suffering in connection with the termination as distinguished from the 2017 assault.
The plaintiff's second argument—that “[n]o evidence was admitted at trial to justify an award of zero”—was belied by the record, which contained ample evidence supporting the jury's verdict.
The plaintiff’s qualified medical evaluator, who first examined her in 2017, testified that her “mental health symptoms,” including her panic attacks, “were substantially caused by the sexual assault at the CDCR.” When he examined her in 2018, he determined that her “mental health condition and symptoms had worsened,” due in part to her re-exposure to the inmate perpetrator. The medical evaluator explained that the second exposure had “a synergistic effect” where “symptoms can increase, you know, algorithmically, exponentially upwards.” He recommended “cognitive behavior therapy to help treat her symptoms,” such as her panic attacks. By July 2019, her condition and symptoms had significantly improved, and by February 2020, she presented “essentially the best he’d ever seen her, notwithstanding her “continued … mild to moderate PTSD.”
In addition, the plaintiff acknowledged that DSH’s expert psychologist testified he didn’t believe the termination exacerbated any mental disorder. According to that expert, the plaintiff “showed no signs of emotional distress now,” i.e., after termination. While the plaintiff may have “felt depressed” about the termination, she exhibited “symptoms of depression … immediately before she started working” with DSH, including nightmares, crying spells, and difficulty falling and staying asleep.
Considering the whole record, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence didn’t compel an award of noneconomic damages. As a result, the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's new trial motion. Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 11/7/2024).
Bottom Line
An award of $0 for noneconomic damages for pain and suffering wasn’t inadequate as a matter of law, according to the Court of Appeal. The record didn’t show that the jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision. As a result, the trial court verdict was affirmed.