Citing a U.S. Supreme Court Ruling, California High Court Slashes Wrongful Firing Award

By Staff Report

Dec. 2, 2009

The California Supreme Court cited McKesson Corp.’s “low degree of reprehensibility” in a workplace harassment case for its decision to slash a jury’s punitive damages award from $15 million to $1.9 million.

The Monday ruling in Charlene J. Roby v. McKesson Corp. et al. involved a customer services worker who received favorable performance reviews during 25 years with the pharmaceutical distributor.

But in 1997, she began suffering panic attacks that made her miss work.

Medication caused her to develop body odor, while the attacks caused a nervous disorder that led to open sores. As a result, a supervisor labeled Roby “disgusting” and openly ostracized her, according to the ruling.

McKesson terminated Roby in 2001, citing her absences. She then sued McKesson and her supervisor for failure to accommodate her medical condition, harassment and wrongful termination, among other things.

A jury found she was wrongfully discharged based on her medical condition and disability, and that she had been illegally harassed and discriminated against. The jury awarded $3.5 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages against McKesson.

In addition, the jury awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $3,000 in punitive damages against a supervisor responsible for the harassment.

However, a California appeals court found there was insufficient evidence for a harassment verdict against McKesson, reducing punitive damages to $2 million and compensatory damages to $1.41 million.

On appeal, the California Supreme Court disagreed and said there was sufficient evidence to support the harassment verdict.

However, the state high court also cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in limiting punitive damages to a 1-to-1 ratio with compensatory damages because of McKesson’s “low degree of reprehensibility” and the “substantial compensatory damages verdict, which included a substantial award of noneconomic damages.”

It remanded the case to reinstate a single $500,000 harassment award against the employer and supervisor, reinstate the jury’s $3,000 punitive damages award against the supervisor and modify punitive damages award against McKesson to $1.91 million, making McKesson responsible for approximately $3.8 million in total damages.

Filed by Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

What’s New at

blog workforce

Come see what we’re building in the world of predictive employee scheduling, superior labor insights and next-gen employee apps. We’re on a mission to automate workforce management for hourly employees and bring productivity, optimization and engagement to the frontline.

Book a call
See the software

Related Articles

workforce blog

Staffing Management

Managing employee time-off requests: A guide for business owners

Summary Vacation, sick time, PTO banks, and unpaid leave are only a few forms of employee time off — Mo...

workforce blog


Labor analytics: A how-to guide for company leadership

Make sure to start small, clean your data, use data from a variety of sources and use desired business ...

data analytics, employee data, HR Tech, people analytics, talent management

workforce blog


Why tattleware isn’t the solution for underperforming teams

If your employees can take their smartphones out of their pockets to circumvent your efforts, how can y...

employee monitoring, HR technology, tattleware