Gary Wysinyer (?Wysinyer?) a former district manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California (?ACSC?) filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming ACSC committed age discrimination. Thereafter, employee claimed that his work environment changed as ACSC no longer invited him to be on management committees or to apply for management positions. The employee also claimed that (i) he was treated coldly and ignored at management meetings; (ii) the ACSC ignored his requests to accommodate his disabilities (lupus, a heart condition, and rheumatoid arthritis); and (iii) he received unfavorable job evaluations. The employee also claimed that he was retaliated against when he was transferred to the ACSC?s Ventura office which he believed created a hardship on him. Several other staff members from his office, however, were also transferred to the Ventura office. When Wysinyer was denied a managerial position, he became depressed and unable to work.
The jury found that ACSC had retaliated against Wysinyer because he had filed an EEOC complaint and that the ACSC had failed to engage in an ?interactive process? to determine reasonable accommodations for Wysinyer?s disability. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an employer must engage in a good faith interactive process with the disabled employee to explore the alternatives to accommodate the disability. The jury, however, found the ACSC not liable, on the claim that it failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for Wysinyer?s disability.
The jury awarded Wysinyer economic damages of $204,000, non-economic damages of $80,000, and punitive damages of $1 million. In addition, the trial court awarded attorney?s fees to the employee in the amount of $978,791.
The court of appeal affirmed the judgment because it found substantial evidence supporting the finding of retaliation and failure to engage in the interactive process.
Wysinger v. Auto. Club of S. Cal., 157 Cal. App. 4th 413 (2007).

Back to main