Jury Awards $19 Million in Disability Discrimination Case Arising from Application of "No-Fault" Absence Policy

Charlene Roby had worked for McKesson for over 25 years. During the first 24 of those years, she claimed to have had good attendance, an exemplary work record, and excellent performance reviews. During the course of her employment, she developed uncontrollable and spontaneous panic attacks. Her condition was diagnosed in 1997 and the plaintiff claimed the company was aware of her panic disorder. During the last 14 months of her employment, Roby missed 12 days of work due to her condition. She used vacation time and sick leave to cover those absences. In late 1999, Roby received a final written warning regarding her absences and was terminated in April 2000.

Roby asserted that McKesson had a no fault absence policy, under which unexcused absences, regardless of whether they were categorized as vacation or sick time, were punishable. Roby asserted that individual managers were given unfettered discretion to construe and apply the policy and claimed that strict application of this policy violated state and federal law.

Roby claimed that, as a result of her termination, her panic attacks became worse, and caused her to self-mutilate. Her doctor testified that the emotional trauma caused by the termination ended her career and caused Roby to have agoraphobia, which resulted in her total disability. Roby testified that she became terrified of people and crowds, was afraid of leaving her own bedroom, and she ultimately relocated out of California to be with relatives.

McKesson apparently did not dispute the existence or application of the policy. Instead, McKesson argued that it did not know that Roby's absences were caused by her condition. McKesson further argued that Roby failed to submit required information for medical leave. McKesson maintained that Roby was fired for good cause due to unexcused absences. McKesson denied harassing or discriminating against Roby in any way and has stated that it will vigorously pursue all available legal remedies, including appeal if necessary.

Jury Awards $11.65 Million to Employee Fired After Taking Leave to Care for Parents

The plaintiff, Chris Schultz, had been employed by the defendant hospital for twenty-six years and won the hospital's employee of the year award in 1999, an honor previously reserved for doctors and hospital administrators. Shultz requested leave to care for his ailing mother and father in 1999 and took intermittent leave under the FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) for several months. Schultz claimed that during this time his supervisor established new performance standards that he could not meet while taking leave. Schultz claimed the standards were arbitrarily established and not uniformly enforced, but were strictly enforced against him. The hospital discharged him in November 2000.