Atwood v. Mission Support All., LLC
| Decision Date | 14 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | C/w No. 35911-5-III,No. 35872-1-III,35872-1-III |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JULIE M. ATWOOD, Respondent, v. MISSION SUPPORT ALLIANCE, LLC and STEVE YOUNG, an individual, Appellants, and DAVID RUSCITO, an individual, Defendant. |
SIDDOWAY, J. — Following a month-long trial, a jury found in favor of Julie Atwood on her claims of gender discrimination and retaliation against her former employer, Mission Support Alliance, LLC (MSA), and her former supervisor, Steve Young. It awarded her $2.1 million in economic damages and $6 million for emotional harm. The trial court awarded her tax-adjusted attorney fees and costs. MSA appeals the judgment on the jury's verdict and the trial court's denial of its motions for a new trial or remittitur.
Whether the verdict should stand turns on aggressive positions taken by Atwood, sustained by the trial court, on issues affecting both liability and damages. We agree that the trial court committed reversible error, reverse the judgment on the jury's verdict, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
While MSA disputed much of Atwood's evidence at trial, it does not contend on appeal that her evidence, if believed by the jury, was insufficient to support the verdict on liability. Liability is the controlling basis on which we reverse. Absent a sufficiency challenge, there is no need to conduct a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to Atwood.
Since we find error, there is a need for us to look at the trial theories of both parties, and the importance (or not) of the evidence that MSA contends was admitted or excluded in error. We therefore describe both parties' evidence and theories.
MSA is a federal contractor that provides integration support for work being performed by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and other federal contractors to clean up the 586 square mile Hanford Site in Richland. In 2013, MSA had almost 1,200 employees. One of its divisions, the Portfolio Management Division, assisted DOE in integrating the work being performed by DOE's many contractors. Those familiar with the Portfolio Management Division often refer to it by the acronym "PFM."
Julie Atwood was hired to serve as a project manager in PFM in February 2010. Her offer letter, which she signed to signify her acceptance, stated that her employment was at will, and could be terminated by her or the company "at any time for any reason, with or without cause or advance notice." Ex. 41, at 2.
On September 19, 2013, Atwood was notified that her employment by MSA was being terminated. A letter presented to her at that time attributed her discharge to "disregard to management's verbal and documented instructions" and "a consistent unacceptable pattern and failure to abide by the Company's Standards of Conduct." Ex. 13. Atwood was surprised and upset on learning of the decision. She refused to sign the letter of termination, but did sign a substitute letter of resignation.
Eighteen months later, on March 10, 2015, Atwood filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC,1 alleging gender discrimination, retaliation, and disparate unfavorable treatment of female employees. She accused MSA of discrimination and retaliation taking place in September 2013, when it terminated her employment, and in March 2014, when she alleged it caused her name to be removed from a bid for a federal contract submitted to DOE by Longenecker & Associates.
Atwood's charge of discrimination alleged she had received consistently positive employment reviews and that shortly before she was fired, MSA's investigation of discrepancies in her accounting for work time "cleared [her] of all allegations." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 9513. She charged that she was nonetheless fired and that MSA personnel told DOE senior management "that I was discharged because of time accounting discrepancies," something that "has damaged my reputation and continues to affect my ability to gain employment." Id.
Ex. 16, at 1. As for Atwood's claim of bid interference, MSA provided the EEOC with a statement from Longenecker's COO2 that MSA had nothing to do with her application or failure to be placed in an assignment with DOE.
Atwood filed suit against MSA and Young in August 2015. By the time of trial, she claimed constructive discharge in violation of public policy, retaliation for opposing discrimination, and constructive termination substantially motived by her gender. She alleged that Young had aided and abetted the statutory violations. In answering her complaint, MSA and Young denied liability and claimed to have had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her employment.
During discovery, MSA asserted attorney-client privilege and instructed witnesses not to answer questions about a September 19, 2013 meeting at which MSA's then-president and general manager, Frank Armijo, made the decision to discharge Atwood. Its claim of privilege was upheld by the trial court. In ruling on motions in limine, the trial court ruled that having claimed the shield of privilege for the meeting, the MSA lawyers and management employees who were present would not be permitted to testify to discussion at the meeting as support for nondiscriminatory reasons for Atwood's discharge.
The case proceeded to a month-long trial in September 2017. Armijo, who had accepted a position with another company and moved out of state, was not called as a witness. The reasons given by MSA for discharging Atwood were in evidence, however, through Atwood's testimony and MSA's response to Atwood's EEOC complaint, which Atwood offered as exhibit 16. They were also reviewed in Atwood's closing argument.
Atwood called 24 witnesses in her case in chief, MSA called 17 witnesses in the defense case, and Atwood called 3 rebuttal witnesses. Well over 100 exhibits were admitted. On the issues that prove dispositive the following evidence was presented, although additional detail is provided in the Analysis section of this opinion.
Before becoming employed by MSA in 2010, Atwood had worked for the Washington State Department of Ecology and for private companies handling solid and hazardous waste management issues. Four of her former supervisors testified at trial to her good work and work ethic.
In March 2012, Armijo hired Young, who was then the mayor of the city of Kennewick, to serve as vice president of PFM. Young had spent his working career in the nuclear industry. In 2008, at a time when he operated a consulting business and was a subcontractor to DOE, he had become a member of the Kennewick City Council. After being elected mayor in 2010, he shut his consulting business. Shortly thereafter, Armijo hired him for a 90-day project that was extended a couple of times. Young accepted the full-time position of PFM vice president in March 2012. He thereafter consistently recorded 56 to 60 hours of work a week: 40 for MSA and 16 to 20 hours for mayoral work for the city of Kennewick.
Once Young was hired, Atwood reported directly to him. Young's first performance review for Atwood, which covered the period from July 2011 through June 2012, was generally positive. Some employees in PFM perceived friction in Atwood and Young's working relationship, however. Several believed that Atwood did not support Young's role as vice president of the division. Young felt that there were times where it seemed that he "was not important enough for [Atwood] to communicate with." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 3782.
In September 2012, MSA received an anonymous complaint about Atwood through its Employee Concern (EC) Program. The EC Program was described at trial as a whistleblower protection-type program that DOE requires of all of its contractors. DOE contracts dictate that "employee concerns" reported to a contractor under the program be investigated within certain time frames and be documented in particular ways.
At MSA, the EC Program was carried out by the office of the president and was supervised by Chris Jensen, the senior director of independent oversight. Jensen has a law enforcement background. His function within the president's office was independent of MSA's other line organizations and included internal audit and risk management functions in addition to the EC Program.
Ex. 10A at 2. The author did not sign the complaint, expressing "fear that Julie will affect my ability to continue employment with MSA." Id.
At the time of the employee concern, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial