CA Court Upholds Jury’s Denial of Pain and Suffering Damages

Takeaway: Employers are well aware of the risks that apparently small discrimination cases pose. Even if a plaintiff alleges relatively small economic damages, damages for pain and suffering and requests for attorney fees can still substantially inflate the price tag. However, this decision shows that employers have ways to fight back. California courts will not automatically assume that a successful plaintiff in a discrimination case has suffered noneconomic damages, and they will also carefully scrutinize excessive requests for attorney fees.

A California appellate court denied a terminated employee’s request for a new trial regarding her alleged pain and suffering and her request for well over $1 million in attorney fees in a disability discrimination case.

The case concerned a woman who had been sexually assaulted by an inmate while working at a previous job at a prison. As a result of the assault, the plaintiff was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, which caused her to suffer from intermittent shortness of breath. The plaintiff went out on medical leave and, while still on leave, applied for a position as a pre-licensed psychiatric technician with defendant California Department of State Hospitals (DSH), which houses criminal offenders with mental disorders as well as individuals who have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.

On her DSH job application, the plaintiff failed to disclose that she had been diagnosed with a “disorder of the nervous system” and “shortness of breath.” Only a few weeks after she was hired, DSH learned of her diagnoses and terminated her employment for making false representations on her application. After a two-week trial, a jury found that the plaintiff had been a victim of mental disability discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and awarded her $28,941 in lost earnings and $7,180 in lost health insurance. However, the jury awarded the plaintiff nothing for pain and suffering.

Following the verdict, the parties filed competing motions. The plaintiff moved for a limited new trial to determine damages for pain and suffering, while the employer moved to strike the award for lost health insurance, arguing that the plaintiff had not presented any evidence of actual expenses caused by the loss of coverage. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the employer’s motion. While the plaintiff sought more than $1.75 million in attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest, the court awarded her only $135,102. 

The plaintiff appealed the ruling, arguing that the failure to award her any damages for pain and suffering was defective as a matter of law. She also argued that the lower court erred when it awarded her only a small part of her claimed attorney fees.

The appellate court sided with the employer on all major issues. First, the court held that the jury’s refusal to award damages for pain and suffering was reasonable. The plaintiff had relied on a case that held that plaintiffs who undergo serious surgical procedures must be awarded damages for pain and suffering, but the court held that the ruling did not apply in this case because the plaintiff had not undergone surgery. The court also held that it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that the plaintiff’s psychological distress was caused by the sexual assault and not by the termination.

Second, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of lost health insurance benefits. Although the plaintiff had lost her benefits, she failed to show that she suffered any actual damages from the loss.

Finally, the court refused to grant the plaintiff’s request for a larger award for attorney fees. Although the plaintiff sought well over $1 million in fees, the trial court had found that the case had been overlitigated and that the request was “shocking” and “beyond all reason.” For example, the plaintiff’s attorneys brought 19 “motions in limine,” none of which were successful, and spent 62 hours on a futile brief in opposition to the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to submit to a mental health examination. 

However, the appellate court remanded the matter for further consideration of the plaintiff’s claim for prejudgment interest, which the lower court had failed to address. 

Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals, Calif. Ct. App., A168526 (Dec. 5, 2024).

Jesse Stavis is an attorney with Duane Morris in Philadelphia.