Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California

November 29, 2007

cite as 2007 SOS 6994

Punitive Damages for Failure to Act on Employee’s Concern

In Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California (ACSC) the Second Appellate District affirmed a judgment of the trial court which held that under the Fair Employment and Housing Act an employer was liable for failing to engage in an “interactive process” to determine reasonable accommodations for an employee’s disability. However, the jury’s findings held that an employer was not liable for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s disability which required different proofs and were not inconsistent.

In short, the reasonable accommodation issue and the “interactive process” are two separate causes of action which require two different proofs of facts.

Guy Wysinger, the plaintiff, was a district manager for the Santa Barbara office of Automobile Club of Southern California (ACSC). He was a fairly good worker and received favorable performance evaluations during his 25 years of employment. But he had health problems which were aggravated by his daily commute.

Wysinger wanted to be ACSC’s Ventura office manager but failed to get the promotion. Later he filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming ACSC committed age discrimination.

After that, Wysinger alleged, his work environment changed. He is no longer invited to be on management committees or to apply for management positions. He was treated coldly and ignored at management meetings. His requests for disability accommodation were ignored. He received unfavorable job evaluations.

He became depressed and unable to work. He sued under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

After jury trial, a special verdict found that ACSC reasonably accommodated Wysinger’s physical disability, and did not discriminate against him on that basis, or because of his age.

However the jury found that ACSC retaliated against Wysinger when he filed the EEOC complaint, and that it failed to engage in an interactive process regarding his disability.

The jury awarded economic and non-economic damages, as well as punitive damages of $1 million. The trial court awarded Wysinger attorney fees of nearly one million dollars, which it declined to apportion. ACSC appealed.

However, the court of appeal affirmed the decision, holding that the verdicts on the reasonable accommodations issue and the interactive process claim were not inconsistent, but rather involved separate causes of action and proof of different facts.

Based on the case, the employer’s decision not to provide accommodations was made in good faith. But here, the jury decided that ACSC’s conduct warranted punitive damages. The jury found ACSC liable because it obstructed the process to determine a reasonable accommodation.

Moreover, the court found, among other things, that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of retaliation by company, that the instruction on retaliatory employer conduct was proper, and that punitive damages were supported by evidence that ACSC’s conduct was ‘malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent, and were constitutionally proportionate’.