San Diego Jury Hands Down $105 Million “Thermonuclear” Verdict to Employee Who Claimed Workplace Harassment

San Diego Jury Hands Down $105 Million “Thermonuclear” Verdict to Employee Who Claimed Workplace Harassment

A California jury has handed down another “thermonuclear” employment verdict in San Diego, where a jury determined that a former substance abuse counselor was terminated for reporting workplace harassment, a hidden camera, and patient safety violations.

A San Diego Superior Court jury awarded $105 million in damages, including $70 million in punitive damages, a substance abuse counselor who was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and patient safety concerns at Fashion Valley Comprehensive Treatment Center, a subsidiary of Acadia Healthcare.

Background

Michelle Giaquinta was hired at the clinic in 2022 to counsel patients with alcohol and drug addictions. She was informed when she was hired that she would treat 60 to 80 patients at a time; however, she was in fact, assigned some 100 patients, her complaint alleged.

In 2023, one of her patients sexually harassed her, showing her photographs of a man’s genitalia. The patient was initially assigned to another counselor and later discharged, the lawsuit stated. Nonetheless, the individual’s harassment of Giaquinta persisted.

“The patient began to loiter on the sidewalk across from the Fashion Valley CTC building,” the lawsuit said. “Plaintiff saw him standing there on multiple occasions for hours at a time.”

Giaquinta claimed her supervisors laughed off the behavior.

A hidden camera was subsequently found in a staff bathroom at the clinic. According to Giaquinta’s complaint, the employee who discovered the camera filed a police report. But Giaquinta was told not to speak to investigators.

Furthermore, Giaquinta claimed that she was sexually harassed by a coworker who was hired in 2023 and subjected her to repeated unwanted requests for a relationship outside work. This employee implied to her that he’d placed the camera in the staff bathroom, she said. Giaquinta reported the incidents and her suspicion that he’d been behind the camera in the bathroom, but her managers didn’t take any action, she complained.

“Plaintiff was devastated by the disregard of her good faith complaint,” the lawsuit said. “Plaintiff feared for her job and was extremely anxious that she would need to continue to work with (the new colleague).”

A day after management deemed Giaquinta's complaints "unfounded," a patient ran through the facility screaming that the same counselor had sexually harassed her. Instead of reporting the incident to state regulators as required, the company fired both the alleged harasser and Giaquinta, the employee who’d reported him on the same day. The employer alleged she failed to document patient interactions properly.

Plaintiff Claimed the Employer Failed to Investigate

Giaquinta’s attorney argued that the evidence demonstrated that the company never investigated his client’s claims and that it terminated her employment to keep her from speaking to regulatory auditors who were scheduled to visit a day after she was placed on leave.

“None of the company’s witnesses apologized or admitted any wrongdoing, despite clear evidence establishing the company had consistently chosen not to follow the law that required them to report the alleged harassment,” he said.

Although the alleged harasser acknowledged that his fingerprints would be found on the hidden camera, the company didn’t report the allegations to state investigators within the legally required 24-hour window. In fact, they never reported the plaintiff’s assertions.

At trial, the company claimed Giaquinta was terminated for allegedly failing to properly document a patient interaction. But she presented evidence showing that the employer failed to investigate the purported documentation issue. In fact, Giaquinta had never been cited for documentation failures and had even been lauded by her manager for her documentation skills.

Punitive Damages Awarded

The jury found that management had unlawfully retaliated against Giaquinta and that its conduct rose to the level of malice, oppression, and fraud, warranting the large punitive damages award.

The employer, Fashion Valley, “vehemently denied” the allegations and asserted that Giaquinta was fired for legitimate reasons. The company also said the award “far exceeds any reasonable expectation based on precedent for comparable employment cases.”

Fashion Valley is said to be evaluating legal options and plans to challenge the verdict through post-trial motions and an appeal, if necessary.

The verdict is one of the largest wrongful termination awards in San Diego County history.

Bottom Line

It’s critical for employers to have an established procedure in place concerning employee concerns and to apply it equally to all employees. For questions on this or other employment law matters, contact us at Eanet, PC.

Related Posts
  • Can an Employer Sue When its Employees Are Poached? Read More
  • California Begins Examining the Impact of AI on the Workforce: What Employers Should Know Read More
  • Can an Employer be Charged with Discrimination if They Don’t Know About His Disability? Read More
/