Verdicts

Sales Engineer Defamed by Former Boss Awarded $1.1 Million

A jury awarded $1.1 million to a man who claimed his former boss defamed him by warning his current boss that he had a record of suing employers. Beheshti v. Liou, No. 2002-045972, Superior Court of Alameda County, Oakland, CA, 02-28-2007.

In 1999, Omid Beheshti, a sales engineer, won a suit against American Advantech Corp., Sunnyvale, for unpaid overtime. In 2001, Beheshti's former supervisor, John Liou, purporting to be from a debt resolution agency, sent a letter to Beheshti's current job and stated he had a record of suing employers. A second letter followed six months later. Beheshti claimed that Liou forged the letters in retaliation for the 1999 lawsuit. Liou admitted that he sent the letters, but only to warn the new employer. The jury was not persuaded and found for Beheshti.

Individuals Are Not Subject to Liability Under the ADEA

A New York Board of Education may be liable for discriminatory firing. Altman v. New York City Department of Education, 06 CV 6319, SDNY, March 23, 2007. The plaintiff was an English As a Second Language teacher in the New York City public school system. She claimed that she was fired because of her age and Chinese origin. Her action against the New York City Board of Education (BOE) and four individual defendants alleged discrimination violating Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court granted the individual defendants partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against them in their individual capacities. Citing Carmody v. City of New York and McCalman v. Partners in Care, it observed that individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII or the ADEA. However, citing Tomka v. Seiler Corp., the court noted that defendants, officially, and ultimately the BOE, as the employer entity, could potentially be subject to liability under Title VII. It concluded that there 'is no prohibition on Plaintiff's ability to subjourn these individuals to prove her case – this means only that should Plaintiff prevail, the BOE will pay the bill.'

Sales Engineer Defamed by Former Boss Awarded $1.1 Million

A jury awarded $1.1 million to a man who claimed his former boss defamed him by warning his current boss that he had a record of suing employers. Beheshti v. Liou, No. 2002-045972, Superior Court of Alameda County, Oakland, CA, 02-28-2007.

In 1999, Omid Beheshti, a sales engineer, won a suit against American Advantech Corp., Sunnyvale, for unpaid overtime. In 2001, Beheshti's former supervisor, John Liou, purporting to be from a debt resolution agency, sent a letter to Beheshti's current job and stated he had a record of suing employers. A second letter followed six months later. Beheshti claimed that Liou forged the letters in retaliation for the 1999 lawsuit. Liou admitted that he sent the letters, but only to warn the new employer. The jury was not persuaded and found for Beheshti.

Individuals Are Not Subject to Liability Under the ADEA

A New York Board of Education may be liable for discriminatory firing. Altman v. New York City Department of Education, 06 CV 6319, SDNY, March 23, 2007. The plaintiff was an English As a Second Language teacher in the New York City public school system. She claimed that she was fired because of her age and Chinese origin. Her action against the New York City Board of Education (BOE) and four individual defendants alleged discrimination violating Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court granted the individual defendants partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against them in their individual capacities. Citing Carmody v. City of New York and McCalman v. Partners in Care, it observed that individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII or the ADEA. However, citing Tomka v. Seiler Corp., the court noted that defendants, officially, and ultimately the BOE, as the employer entity, could potentially be subject to liability under Title VII. It concluded that there 'is no prohibition on Plaintiff's ability to subjourn these individuals to prove her case – this means only that should Plaintiff prevail, the BOE will pay the bill.'