October 1, 2020 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Big Blue Bus Did Not Discriminate When Firing Pregnant Driver: Supreme Court:

The California Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a jury award of $177,905 to Santa Monica bus driver Wynona Harris who was fired after revealing she was pregnant, meaning the City of Santa Monica won’t have to pay the six-figure sum.

The City’s transit authority Big Blue Bus insisted Harris would have been fired regardless of her pregnancy because she had had two “preventable” accidents and was late to work twice.

Thursday’s ruling, written by Justice Goodwin Liu, was 6-0, with one justice not participating.

The case is headed back to trial court to determine whether the city should be allowed to instruct the jury to consider a “mixed-motive” defense, which states an employer is not liable if it can prove it was motivated in its decision to fire a worker by both discriminatory and non-discriminatory factors, according to Santa Monica Patch.

The following information is taken from court documents:

Harris was hired bus driver trainee in October 2004. Shortly into her 40-day training period, Harris had what she calls a minor accident, which the city deemed “preventable.”

No passengers were on her bus and no one was injured, but the accident cracked the glass on the bus’ back door.

When the city hired Harris, it gave her its “Guidelines for Job Performance Evaluation.” The guidelines stated, “Preventable accidents . . . [are] an indication of unsafe driving. . . . [T]hose who drive in an unsafe manner will not pass probation.”

In mid-November 2004, Harris successfully completed her training period, and the city promoted her to the position of probationary part-time bus driver. (Her formal title was “Motor Coach Operator Part Time.”)

As a probationary driver, Harris was an at-will employee. Sometime during her first three-month probation evaluation period (the record is not clear when), Harris had a second preventable accident, in which she side swiped a parked car and tore off its side mirror. According to Harris, she hit the parked car after swerving to avoid a car that cut her off in traffic.

On February 18, Harris reported late to work, thus earning her first “miss-out.”

The job performance guidelines that she received when hired defined a “miss-out” as a driver failing to give her supervisor at least one hour’s warning that she will not be reporting for her assigned shift.

The guidelines noted that most drivers get one or two late reports or miss-outs a year, but more than that suggested a driver had a “reliability problem.”

The guidelines further provided, “Miss-outs and late reports have a specific [demerit] points value [of 25 points]. Probationary employees are allowed half the points as a permanent full time operator, which is 100 points.”

For her miss-out, Harris received 25 demerit points. Harris’ training supervisor testified she told Harris that a probationary employee faced termination if she accumulated 50 points in any rolling 90-day period.

On March 1, 2005, Harris’ supervisor gave Harris a written performance evaluation covering her first three months as a probationary driver from mid-November 2004 to February 14, 2005. In grading Harris’ “overall performance rating,” her supervisor indicated “further development needed.” Harris testified at trial that her supervisor told her that, except for her accident the previous November as a trainee, she was doing a good job and that her supervisor would have graded her as “demonstrates quality performance” but for that accident.

Underscoring Harris’s claim, her supervisor wrote “Keep up the Great Job!” for the category “Goals to Work on During the Next Review Period.” 

On April 27, 2005, Harris incurred her second miss-out.

Her daughter had a hearing that day in juvenile court which required Harris to accompany her.

To avoid Harris’s losing a day’s pay, Harris’ supervisor agreed to reschedule her to work the 5:00 p.m. shift.

Around 2:30 or 3:00 p.m. that afternoon, Harris called her work dispatcher to report that the juvenile court judge had not yet called her daughter’s case. The dispatcher told Harris that Harris could wait until 4:00 p.m. — one hour before her shift started — to report that she would be arriving late for her 5:00 p.m. shift.

A driver’s failure to give at least one hour’s warning that she would be tardy for work triggered a miss-out. Harris’ daughter’s case was called shortly after Harris spoke to the dispatcher.

The court hearing resulted in the daughter being charged with a felony.

Due to the stress from her daughter’s plight, Harris testified she forgot to call her dispatcher by 4:00 p.m. as promised. Following her miss-out, Harris’ supervisor prepared a miss-out report. The report stated Harris had incurred two miss-outs for a total of 50 demerit points, but Harris’ supervisor denied having written that part of the report.

Transit Services Manager Bob Ayer investigated the circumstances of Harris’ miss-out “right after it happened” beginning “probably” the next day.

Ayer met with Harris on May 3 to discuss what had happened.

Harris explained she had forgotten to call the dispatcher because she was upset from her daughter being charged with a felony.

Based on his investigation, on May 4 or 5, Ayer recommended to his supervisor, the bus company’s assistant director, that the miss-out should remain in Harris’ file.

Ayer testified the assistant director asked him to examine Harris’ complete personnel file.

Ayer testified he did so and told the assistant director that the file showed Harris was not meeting the city’s standards for continued employment because she had two miss-outs, two preventable accidents, and had been evaluated as “further development needed.”

About one week after Ayer recommended that the city sustain Harris’s miss-out, Harris had a chance encounter on or about May 12 with her supervisor, George Reynoso, as she prepared to begin her shift.

Seeing Harris’ uniform shirt hanging loose, Reynoso told her to tuck in her shirt.

Beckoning him to step aside so she could speak to him, Harris told Reynoso she was pregnant.

Harris testified Reynoso reacted with seeming displeasure at her news, exclaiming, “Wow. Well, what are you going to do? How far along are you?”

He then asked her to get a doctor’s note clearing her to continue to work.

Four days later, on May 16, Harris gave Reynoso her doctor’s note permitting her to work with some limited restrictions. (Neither party argues the restrictions are relevant to this appeal).

The morning Harris gave him the note, Reynoso attended a supervisors’ meeting and received a list of probationary drivers who were not meeting standards for continued employment. Harris was on the list.

Harris testified that Ayer summoned her to a meeting where he told her the city had been evaluating all part-time drivers and, although he had heard a lot of good things about her, the city was terminating her. Harris’ last day was May 18, 2005.

In October 2005, Harris sued the city. She alleged the city fired her because she was pregnant. (Gov. Code, §§ 12940, subd. (a) [prohibits discrimination based on “sex”]; 12926, subd. (p) [“sex” discrimination includes pregnancy].)

Answering Harris’ complaint, the city denied her allegations and asserted as an affirmative defense that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to fire her as an at-will employee.

The case was tried to a jury. The city asked the court to instruct the jury with BAJI No. 12.26, which instructed on the city’s “mixed-motives” defense. 

The court refused to give the instruction. The court’s reason for rejecting the instruction appears to have been that Harris conceded she was an at-will employee (by which the court presumably meant she conceded she could be fired without cause), but the city’s purported reason for terminating her — poor performance — was pretextual.

By special verdict, the jury found by a vote of nine-to-three that Harris’ “pregnancy [was] a motivating factor/reason for [the city’s] decision to discharge” her. The jury awarded her $177,905 in damages.

The city moved on multiple grounds for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial.

In its motions the city argued, among other things, that the court’s refusal to instruct the jury with the city’s mixed-motive instruction deprived the city of a legitimate defense. The court denied both motions.

Harris thereafter moved for her attorney’s fees, which the court awarded at slightly more than $400,000. (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (b) [prevailing plaintiff in discrimination lawsuit entitled to attorney’s fees].)

Harris has filed an appeal in the State of California’s Second Appellate District.

in News
Related Posts

Edify TV: Avoiding a ‘Twindemic’

September 30, 2020

September 30, 2020

Local officials are trying to avoid a double dose of hospitalizations from the flu and coronavirus being coined a ‘Twindemic.’...

Edify TV: Westside Colleges to Remain Remote for Foreseeable Future

September 30, 2020

September 30, 2020

Westside college campuses, closed amid the COVID-19 pandemic, will likely remain closed for the foreseeable future. Learn more in this...

BREAKING: Santa Monica City Council Approves Miramar Expansion

September 30, 2020

September 30, 2020

Project moves forward by 4-2 vote By Sam Catanzaro Santa Monica City Council has approved plans that have been in...

Santa Monica Walk to End Alzheimer’s

September 29, 2020

September 29, 2020

Alzheimer’s Association encouraging residents to walk in small groups amid COVID-19 The Alzheimer’s Association is inviting Santa Monica residents to...

Lawsuit Filed Against Plaza Development

September 28, 2020

September 28, 2020

Slow-growth group says City is violating Surplus Land Act By Sam Catanzaro A slow-growth group has filed a lawsuit to...

City Of Santa Monica Being Sued Over Proposed Plaza Project: Santa Monica Beat – September, 28, 2020

September 28, 2020

September 28, 2020

Local news and culture in under 5 minutes. * Santa Monica Being Sued Over Proposed Plaza Project. * LA Street...

Santa Monica Police Make Additional Arrests in Looting of REI

September 28, 2020

September 28, 2020

Marques Miles and Misty Jones arrested by Santa Monica Police Department Santa Monica police recently made additional arrests of two...

OpEd: The Miramar Project Will Be a New Architectural Jewel

September 27, 2020

September 27, 2020

The Miramar Hotel has been a central part of Santa Monica’s history and an integral part of the community for...

Edify TV: Trident Center Redevelopment

September 25, 2020

September 25, 2020

The Westside’s Trident Center is getting a major overhaul and new name as part of a flurry of development in...

Miramar Project to go Before City Council Tuesday

September 24, 2020

September 24, 2020

Councilmember Gleam Davis asks City Attorney whether she should rescue self from vote  By Sam Catanzaro  Santa Monica lawmakers will...

SMa.r.t. Column: Needed, A Heart Transplant

September 24, 2020

September 24, 2020

We have written about adaptive reuse in previous columns and have postulated that with proper incentives, the existing one, two...

Edify TV: Boulders Blocking Westside Encampment

September 24, 2020

September 24, 2020

City officials recently removed boulders placed on sidewalks by some Westside residents to prevent the formation of a homeless encampment....

Should Council Member Davis Recuse Herself From Voting? Santa Monica Beat – September, 24, 2020

September 24, 2020

September 24, 2020

Local news and culture in under 5 minutes. * Should Council Member Davis Recuse Herself From Voting? * Increases In...

SMC to Be Online for Winter and Spring 2021

September 24, 2020

September 24, 2020

College cites lack of available vaccine  By Sam Catanzaro Santa Monica College (SMC) has announced it will be delivering classes...

Edify TV: Al Fresco Program Ending?

September 24, 2020

September 24, 2020

During a COVID-19 pandemic many restaurants have found aid through the City of Los Angeles’ Al Fresco dining program, but...