Age discrimination by ADP in sales position. $418K.

Summary

Salesperson says she was denied the opportunity to sell a leading product because of her age.

Case Name: Sasha Elkins v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
Court and Case Number: United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division / 5:21-cv-00606-JGB-KK
Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, May 11, 2023
Date Action was Filed: Thursday, January 14, 2021
Type of Case: Employment
Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Jesus Bernal
Plaintiffs:
Sasha Elkins, 49
Defendants:
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
Type of Result: Jury Verdict

Gross Verdict or Award: $418,000 verdict before addition of prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees.
Economic Damages:
$168,000
Non-Economic Damages:
$250,000
Trial or Arbitration Time: 5 days
Jury Deliberation Time: 2 hours
Jury Polls: 8 in favor of plaintiff, 0 in favor of defendant.
Post Trial Motions & Post-Verdict Settlements: Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees granted in the amount of $253,837. Defendant's motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict denied.

Attorney for the Plaintiff:
The Simon Law Group by Maximilian Lee, Torrance.

Ghozland Law Firm by Jennifer Ghozland, Los Angeles.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Ogletree Deakins by Vince Verde, Tiffany Woods and Carlos Bacio, Costa Mesa.

Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Ravinder Singh, M.D., psychiatry. (Treating physician.)

Jaime Brown, Ph.D., (Treating psychologist.)
Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
Matthew Carroll, M.D., psychiatry.

Facts and Background:
In 2015, plaintiff, female age 49, was hired for a sales job selling Automatic Data Processing’s HRO product. She sought a promotion to sell another product named TotalSource. In March 2017, ADP instead transferred a younger employee to sell TotalSource. In June 2018, ADP again transferred another younger employee to sell TotalSource. Plaintiff took a leave of absence and then resigned from her position with ADP on January 2, 2019.
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That ADP subjected plaintiff to age discrimination in failing to promote her to a position to sell TotalSource.

Plaintiff had been awarded as a top salesperson in her region by ADP in 2018. Plaintiff had better sales numbers than the women who were promoted over her, and a former co-worker testified that plaintiff was more qualified than the women who were promoted.
Defendant's Contentions:
That a transfer to a position to sell TotalSource is not a promotion. The other employees transferred to sell TotalSource in 2017 and 2018 were more qualified than plaintiff.

That ADP had a legitimate business reason to not transfer plaintiff to a position to sell TotalSource. Further, that plaintiff never formally applied for a TotalSource position.

The court granted summary adjudication against plaintiff on her constructive discharge claim and punitive damages.

Defendant only requested a defense verdict at trial and did not make any arguments regarding damages.