CITY HALL An attorney representing a former Big Blue Bus trainee who sued the transportation agency for discrimination and won is calling on City Hall to drop its appeal and pay up.
Michael Nourmand, the attorney for former BBB motor coach trainee Wynonna Harris, said a jury in February of this year awarded his client more than $177,000 in damages, and granted him more than $400,000 in attorney fees.
When city attorneys appealed the decision, Nourmand asked for and was granted interest on the judgment in September. The interest on the $583,433 judgment is 7 percent per year, Nourmand said.
Harris sued BBB for discrimination, claiming her supervisor fired her on May 18, 2005 after learning that she was pregnant. City Hall said Harris was fired because of her poor driving record, which included two preventable accidents. Pregnant pause continues “Now that the jury has ruled in Ms. Harris’ favor, the city is still playing games, and at the end of the day, the people are the ones who are at a loss because of this discriminatory conduct,” Nourmand said in an interview earlier this month.
“The taxpayers are the ones who have to pay this judgment,” he added. “Instead of trying to resolve these type of cases, the city is choosing to fight.”
In the past, City Hall has opted to challenge the merits of cases involving employee discrimination and personal injury, but has also settled many cases before they went to trial.
Deputy City Attorney Carol Rohr said no evidence was presented at trial that proved BBB supervisors fired Harris because of her pregnancy and said she is confident that the verdict will be thrown out on appeal.
“As a common carrier, the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus had a duty to provide the utmost care and safety towards its passengers, as well as provide reliable and timely service,” Rohr said. “Based on Ms. Harris’ unsafe and unreliable record, the Big Blue Bus severed ties while she was an ‘at will’ employee on probation.”
THE CASE AGAINST BIG BLUE Harris was hired by Big Blue Bus on Oct. 4, 2004 as a motor coach trainee. She completed the training program just over a month later and was promoted to a part-time driver, Nourmand said.
In April 2005, Harris claims she called into work telling the person in charge of scheduling to put her on a “late run” because she had to report to juvenile court with her daughter. While at court, Harris claims she called the dispatcher to say that she probably would not make it to work on time for her 5 p.m. shift. Harris was allegedly instructed to call back later in the day to check in.
Harris forgot to call back because her daughter was charged with a felony and ordered to register with a probation officer, Nourmand said, adding that his client was under a lot of stress.
When she returned to work a few days later, she was called into her supervisor’s office to talk about her absence. She explained where she was and provided her manager with documentation from the court, her attorney said. A few days after the meeting, a supervisor asked Harris why her shirt wasn’t tucked in. Harris told the supervisor she was pregnant.
Harris claims the supervisor responded by asking, “Wow, how far along are you?” and “What are you going to do?”
About a week later, Harris was called into her manager’s officer and was terminated.
Harris sued, saying she was unfairly treated once people found out about her pregnancy.
She points to the absence which resulted from her daughter’s court appearance. When she met with her manager to explain her absence, she claims that her manager dismissed it because she had phoned in to give dispatchers enough time to find a replacement driver.
However, when she was fired, that absence was included, something Harris believes was done because of her pregnancy.
Nourmand said he does not expect a decision from the appeals court until sometime in the summer of 2008.
“It’s a shame how the city has treated Ms. Harris,” Nourmand said.
Rohr said BBB did nothing wrong and believes the jury may have let emotion play too big a role when deliberating.
“Employment discrimination cases are tough, emotionally driven cases, but the jury is required to rely on the law,” Rohr said.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 28, 2007. Read the original PDF.