Marjati Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc., Roger E.A. Taylor, Wayne Liem, Bill McKinley Ron Birtch, Nancy Alexander

274 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2001) MARJATI WINARTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT v. TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS, INC., ROGER E.A. TAYLOR, WAYNE LIEM, BILL MCKINLEY, RON BIRTCH, NANCY ALEXANDER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES No. 99-55448 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted October 11, 2000 Filed Dec. 21, 2001 [Copyrighted Material Omitted][Copyrighted Material Omitted] Tyron J. Sheppard, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellant. Arthur F. Silbergeld, Proskauer Rose L.L.P., Los Angeles, California, for the defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Christina A. Snyder, District Court Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-97-09146-CAS Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Sidney R. Thomas, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges. 1 Opinion by Judge BETTY B. FLETCHER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge WARDLAW. BETTY B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge 2 Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. She sued the company and some of her managers and co-workers in federal district court, raising claims of illegal retaliation, disability discrimination, and civil…

Opinion by Judge BETTY B. FLETCHER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge WARDLAW.

Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. She sued the company and some of her managers and co-workers in federal district court, raising claims of illegal retaliation, disability discrimination, and civil rights violations, among others. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Winarto; awarded her $93,000 in compensatory damages; and found that the liable defendants had acted with oppression, fraud, or malice; but deadlocked as to the amount of punitive damages. After the verdicts were returned, the district court granted defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law, set aside all verdicts that favored Winarto, and denied Winarto’s motion for a new trial as moot. We reverse and reinstate part of the jury’s verdict for compensatory damages and reinstate the jury’s finding that defendants acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, and remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. We sustain the district court’s vacation of the jury’s…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

First, I note my agreement with the majority on its reversal of the district court’s grant of JMOL on Winarto’s claims under California Civil Code §§ 51.7, 52(b), and 52.1, and with its affirmance of the district court on the FEHA disability claim. Where I part company with the majority is on its reversal of the district court’s grant of JMOL on Winarto’s claim of retaliatory discharge.

In 1995, Toshiba determined that a firm-wide reduction in force was necessary. Winarto was identified as one of the employees to be laid off because (i) her department would be required to lay off one employee and (ii) in the previous year, 1994, she received the lowest performance evaluation scores in her department. After she was so identified, but before the final decision was made, Winarto filed a written claim of race, national origin, and sex discrimination. Toshiba’s Human Resources Department investigated the claim and found it meritless. Thereafter, on March 31, 1995, Toshiba notified Winarto that she would be among those laid off. The majority reverses the district court’s grant of JMOL on Winarto’s ensuing claim of retaliatory discharge,…