Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ram Nehara v. the State of California

May 3, 2013

RAM NEHARA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING BACK PAY AND FRONT PAY

I. Background

Plaintiff was employed as a registered nurse at North Kern State Prison. During his employment, Plaintiff alleged he suffered retaliation for complaining about discrimination based upon his national origin. After a six-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, finding he had suffered retaliation in violation of Title VII. Currently before the Court, is Plaintiff's request for an award of back and front pay and interest on the back pay award.

II. Factual Findings

As a preliminary matter, in making the determination of a back pay or front pay award, the Court is bound by the jury's determinations. Traxler v. Multnomah Cnty., 596 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010), citing Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955, 964-66 (10th Cir. 2002). "The true test is whether the jury verdict by necessary implication reflects the resolution of a common factual issue. If so, the district court may not ignore that determination, and it is immaterial whether, 2 as here, the district court is considering equitable claims with elements different from those of the 3 legal claims which the jury had decided (as may often be the case)." Ag Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Nielsen, 4 231 F.3d 726, 732 (10th Cir.2000). "[W]hen the jury has decided a factual issue, its determination 5 has the effect of precluding the court from deciding the same fact issue in a different way." Wade v. Orange County Sheriff's Office, 844 F.2d 951, 954 (2nd Cir.1988).

With this in mind, the Court adopts the explicit and implicit findings of the jury and finds:

1. Plaintiff complained to his employer that he was being subjected to discrimination based upon his national origin;

2. Michael Cavenaugh initiated Plaintiff's firing by seeking out reports about Plaintiff's job performance and preparing a report detailing job deficiencies;

3. Michael Cavanaugh initiated the accusation against Plaintiff's registered nursing license with the California Board of Registered Nursing.

4. The acts by Michael Cavanaugh formed the basis for the determination Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII;

5. As a result of the retaliation by Defendant, Plaintiff was terminated on April 30, 2009;

6. As a result of the retaliation by Defendant, Plaintiff's registered nursing license was revoked on August 4, 2010;

7. At the time Plaintiff was terminated, he earned $7,650.10 per month;

8. Plaintiff consistently worked overtime hours while employed by Defendant;

9. During the full work weeks between December 2007 and March 2008, Plaintiff worked an average of 42.5 hours per week of overtime;

10. At the time Plaintiff was terminated, he earned not less than $1,500 per month in overtime;

11. At the time of trial, Plaintiff was 45 years old;

12. Plaintiff has worked as a nurse from 1989 through July 2009;

13. Plaintiff has a master's degree in nursing which he ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.