Young managers want to move out a long-time employee.
- Case Name: Rael v. Sybron Dental, et al
- Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / BC 584 994
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, June 26, 2018
- Date Action was Filed: Friday, June 12, 2015
- Type of Case: Employment, Wrongful Termination
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Susan Bryant-Deason
Plaintiffs: Codie Rael, 54, buyer/planner.
Defendants: Sybron DentalKaVo Kerr GroupKerr CorporationOrmco CorporationDanaher Corporation
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
- Gross Verdict or Award: $31,089,793
Award as to each Defendant:
Phase 1: $3,089,793
Phase 2: Sybron Dental Specialties – $16,000,000; KaVo Kerr Group – $12,000,000
- Jury Deliberation Time: 4 days.
- Jury Polls: 9-3
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Shegerian & Associates by Carney R. Shegerian, Anthony Nguyen and Mark Lim, Santa Monica.
Attorney for the Defendant:
Seyfarth Shaw LLP by Jon D. Meer, Jamie C. Pollaci and Pantea Lili Ahmadi, Los Angeles.
Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):
Craig Snyder, Ph.D., psychology, Beverly Hills.
Heather Halpern, LCSW, South Pasadena.
David Glaser, M.D., psychiatry, Encino.
Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
Plaintiff's Technical Expert(s):
Tamorah Hunt, MBA, Ph.D., economics, Santa Aana.
Defendant's Technical Expert(s):
Facts and Background
Facts and Background:
Plaintiff was a 35-year employee and at the time of her separation at 54 years of age.
Plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to age discrimination and retaliation and forced to resign after defendants failed to take any action to remedy her working environment after she raised complaints of mistreatment; that after all of her colleagues in her department were forced out (all over the age of 40), she was refused training (despite younger employees freely receiving training). She was accused of being “resistant to change,” “outdated,” and part of the “old culture,” among other age-based comments, after a new and younger manager came into the picture.
That plaintiff's record was stellar until new direct supervisor Fernando Estavillo (“Estavillo”) and his supervisor Mark Valiquette (“Valiquette”) began at the defendant company. That plaintiff’s work load was suddenly increased, and she was treated differently (and noticeably) by her supervisors compared to younger employees, denied her applications for higher positions under false pretenses in favor of a younger employee and told by Estavillo, who was under 40 years of age, “We just didn’t want you.”
Also, that all defendants were direct, indirect, single, and/or joint employers of plaintiff.
Defendants denied that plaintiff was forced out and contended that she voluntarily left her employment.