Your posting made me do a little homework. Turns out he also gets 3 months salary and will continue to vest his options. I also found this blog at employerslawyer.blogspot. com/2005/08/its-not-always-nice-in-san-diego-6.html that the plaintiff's counsel wrote. Seems like the facts that Acadia presented weren't all of the facts. Do you think Brann might be next?
On August 24th, a San Diego Superior Court jury concluded its deliberations on civil claims for sex harassment and retaliation brought by Audra Scully, a 35-year old UCSD Ph.D., against her San Diego biotech employer Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and two of its top executives, Chief Science Officer, President and company founder, Mark Brann, Ph.D. and Executive Vice President of Drug Discovery and Development, Robert Davis, Ph.D. Drs. Brann and Davis are long-time professional colleagues. Dr. Davis is primarily responsible for generating venture capital for Acadia’s on-going drug discovery operations.
The demographically and racially diverse jury of eight women and four men deliberated over three days following a two week trial before finding the company and the individual defendants liable on each of Dr. Scully’s claims. The jury determined that Dr. Davis had subjected Dr. Scully, over a period of months, to persistent unwanted sexual advances that he tied to his support of her advancement and increased “visibility” at the company. Dr. Scully reported her discomfort with Dr. Davis’ conduct, her fear of his retaliating against her for rejecting his advances, and the fact that he had engaged in similar conduct while serving as President of a prior biotech company to Acadia’s Human Resources Director on multiple occasions, but no investigation or inquiry was initiated.
Dr. Scully ultimately reported her concerns to her direct superior Dr. Brann, after which he promptly subjected her to adverse consequences that included his removing her from managing a valuable collaborative project, giving her a first-ever negative performance review, a paltry raise and bonus, and eventually firing her allegedly for not being able to get along with her peers. Prior to reporting Dr. Davis’ conduct, the defendants had promoted Dr. Scully and given her significant raises, bonuses and stock while repeatedly commending her as a “bright and shining star.” Despite diligent efforts to find another job after she was fired from her project manager position in June 2004, Dr. Scully was only able to land a significantly lesser-paying job in academia in June 2005.
The jury reasoned that Dr. Davis’ sexual advances compromised Dr. Scully and caused her $450,000 in compensatory damages. The jury also found clear and convincing evidence that Acadia consciously disregarded Dr. Scully’s civil right to be free of sex harassment in the work place by failing to take any of the steps provided under its own anti-harassment policy, awarding her an additional $450,000 in punitive damages against Acadia. The jury also awarded $600,000 in punitive damages against Dr. Davis personally, having found clear and convincing evidence that his treatment of Dr. Scully was malicious and/or oppressive particularly given the fact that he had been reprimanded in writing for similar conduct at his prior place of employment in the spring of 2000 but refused that directive to attend sex harassment training because he was “too busy.”
On the retaliation claim, the jury determined that Dr. Scully’s reporting Dr. Davis’ harassing conduct was a motivating reason for Dr. Brann’s decision to fire her under the pretext of an inability to get along with coworkers. For these acts, the jury separately awarded Dr. Scully $3.4 million in compensatory damages including past and reasonably anticipated future lost wages and benefits. To punish and deter such conduct in the future, the jury awarded Dr. Scully an additional $3.95 million in punitive damages against Acadia and Dr. Brann personally. The total award for compensatory and punitive damages amounted to $7.9 million.
# posted by Jon Vanderpool - Plaintiff's Counsel : 12:38 PM |
