Plaintiffs allege California Whistleblower Protection Act violations by university. $6.1M. Riverside County.
Summary
Two faculty members at UC Riverside, both psychiatrists, allege whistleblower retaliation including constructive termination.
The Case
- Case Name: Lochhead v. The Regents of the University of California, consolidated with Nelson v. The Regents of the University of California
- Court and Case Number: Riverside County Superior Court / CVRI2105008
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, June 27, 2024
- Date Action was Filed: Monday, November 01, 2021
- Type of Case: Highlighted Verdicts, Whistleblower, Wrongful Termination
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Chad Firetag
-
Plaintiffs: Jeannie Lochhead, M.D., 41Michele Nelson, M.D., 40
-
Defendants: The Regents of the University of California
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Net Verdict or Award: $6,127,000
-
Award as to each Defendant:
The jury found retaliation for both plaintiffs but that only Dr. Nelson was constructively terminated.
-
Economic Damages:
Lost earnings: Dr. Nelson was awarded $727,132 in past economic loss, and $4,000,000 in future economic loss, including loss of income and lost pension benefits.
-
Non-Economic Damages:
Dr. Lochhead was awarded $400,000 in past non-economic loss, and Dr. Nelson was awarded $1,000,000 in past non-economic loss.
The difference in the awards came from the jury only finding that Nelson was constructively terminated.
- Trial or Arbitration Time: 6 weeks
- Jury Deliberation Time: 1 1/2 days
- Jury Polls: Between 9 and 12 jurors for plaintiffs on each question.
The Attorneys
-
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Greene Broillet & Wheeler, LLP by Ivan Puchalt, Jenna Edzant and Christian Nickerson, El Segundo.
-
Attorney for the Defendant:
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP by Stephen E. Ronk, Linh Hua and Kaitlyn Chang, Los Angeles.
Facts and Background
-
Facts and Background:
The lawsuit combined two whistleblower retaliation complaints alleging California Whistleblower Protection Act violations by UC Riverside's Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience. Plaintiffs alleged that they reported a misuse of state funds, economic waste, conflicts of interest, billing fraud, and refusing to engage in conduct which would violate university policy and/or law. Plaintiffs alleged that their disclosures were made to multiple people, including their department chair, Gerald Maguire, M.D.
Both plaintiffs are former faculty members of UC Riverside's Department of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, who claim they were constructively terminated and suffered other adverse actions in retaliation for reporting conduct that violated university policy and/or law.
-
Plaintiff's Contentions:
The consolidated complaints both allege that the plaintiffs engaged in protected activities when they made various complaints and were retaliated against, which made made their working conditions intolerable.
They claimed that due to reporting misconduct by Dr. Maguire and their own refusal to engage in illegal and unethical acts, they faced retaliation, including job demotions, removal from leadership positions, exclusion from essential meetings and committees, unwarranted scrutiny, salary reduction, and the withholding of promised productivity bonuses.
-
Defendant's Contentions:
The UC Regents contended that the plaintiffs did not make protected disclosures, did not suffer any adverse employment actions, and that even if there were adverse employment actions, they denied any causal connection between the plaintiffs' disclosures and the adverse actions against them.
Also, that the plaintiffs’ resignations were voluntary, that no intolerable working conditions existed, and that plaintiffs suffered no damages.