Ashley Howell worked as a temporary pre-licensed psychiatric technician (PT) with the State Department of State Hospitals (DSH) from January 2 – 24, 2020. PTs provide nursing and psychiatric care to DSH’s patients.
Howell underwent a health screening which required her to disclose, among other things, any disorders to her nervous system, lung or respiratory trouble, or shortness of breath. Howell disclosed her asthma, but nothing else despite the facts that Howell had been previously diagnosed with: major depressive disorder and post traumatic stress disorder while employed with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR); panic attacks with trouble breathing; and shortness of breath. Howell was still on medical leave from CDCR and received counseling and treatment through workers compensation, when she responded to the DHS health screening questions.
When Howell began employment with DSH on January 2, 2020, she was still on medical leave with CDCR. The next day, Howell submitted a doctors’ note to CDCR stating she could not return to work until February 23.
DSH only learned of Howell’s leave status until on or about January 22, when CDCR informed DSH. Then, DSH discovered that Howell had sustained an injury to her “nervous system,” which was inconsistent with her response on DSH health questionnaire. On January 24, DSH therefore terminated Howell’s employment.
Howell sued DSH under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for mental and physical disability discrimination, as well as other FEHA claims. The court granted DSH’s motion for summary judgment in favor of DSH on the other FEHA claims. Howell’s claims for mental and physical disability discrimination were tried to a jury. The jury found for Howell on her mental disability discrimination claim only, and awarded $28,941 in lost earnings, $7,810.25 in lost health insurance, and zero for pain and suffering.
DSH moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the court granted. As a result, the court struck the award for lost health insurance because Howell had failed to present evidence of out-of-pocket expenses caused by the loss. As the prevailing party, Howell also sought over $1.75 million in attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The court awarded only $135,102. Howell appealed.
Howell argued that there was no justification for the zero-dollar award for her pain and suffering because she had offered supporting testimony of several witnesses. The Court of Appeal’s review of the record showed that her pain and suffering arose from her sexual assault at CDCR, and not from her termination from DSH. Howell also argued that the trial court erred by striking the jury’s award for lost health insurance benefits, and granting only part of Howell’s motion for attorney fees, costs, and interest. The Court noted that Howell did not provide evidence of out-of-pocket expenses for lost health insurance benefits. The Court also upheld the trial court’s award of $135,102 in attorney fees and costs, finding Howell’s request for $1.75 million to be unreasonable. The Court remanded the case for the trial court to address Howell’s request for prejudgment interest.
Howell v. State Dept. of State Hospitals, 2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 784.