Dr Lauren Pinter- Brown v. University of California at Los Angeles
- Court: California State, Los Angeles County, Superior Court
- Case Number: BC624838
- Filed: June 22, 2016
- Judges: Joseph Lipner | Michelle Williams Court | Curtis A. Kin | Monica Bachner | Teresa Sanchez-Gordon | Ruth Ann Kwan | Michael P. Linfield
- Case Type: (1117) Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction); Civil
Parties Involved
- Plaintiff(s): Dr Lauren Pinter- Brown
- Counsel for Plaintiff: Robert William Reed | Mahru Madjidi | Carney R. Shegerian
- Expert witness for Plaintiff(s): Michael Robbins
- Defendant(s): Regents of the University of California | University of California at Los Angeles | Dr. De Vos Sven
- Counsel for Defendants: Ronk Stephen Earl | Shao Erika Lynn | Nicole T. Lomibao
- Expert witness for Defendant(s): Jay Finkelman, Ph.D
Verdict Information
- Verdict Date: May 9, 2024
- Total damages awarded to Plaintiff: $14 million
- Past economic loss: $2.1 million
- Future economic loss: $2.5 million
- Past non-economic loss: $5.0 million
- Future non-economic loss: $4.4 million
About the Case
Cause
Dr. Lauren Pinter-Brown, a former director of the UCLA lymphoma program and clinical professor of medicine, filed a lawsuit against her employer, UCLA, and the Regents of the University of California. The lawsuit alleged multiple violations during her tenure from 2005 to 2015. These violations included gender discrimination, age discrimination, harassment, retaliation, unequal pay, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.
At 61 years old, Dr. Pinter-Brown was one of the only senior female faculty members. She claimed she consistently received exemplary reviews. This continued until her constructive discharge in 2015. However, beginning in 2011, a male colleague, Dr. De Vos, allegedly subjected her to demeaning treatment. During patient care, he called on her excessively. Additionally, he attempted to push her out as program director. In meetings, he shut down her ideas.
Despite complaints to the Title IX office, UCLA allegedly failed to address the harassment and gender discrimination. Instead, Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she faced retaliation, including “random audits” of her research, suspension as principal investigator, removal as acting program director, and being forced to work under Dr. De Vos’s supervision.
The lawsuit further alleged unequal pay practices. It stated that Dr. Pinter-Brown and the only other senior female faculty member earned approximately $200,000 less than their male counterparts. This disparity existed despite equal work, skills, and responsibilities. Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed her pay remained lower than that of her male colleagues despite her complaints. Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed her pay remained lower than males despite complaints.
Additionally, the lawsuit stated UCLA made false, defamatory statements about Dr. Pinter-Brown’s professional reputation and research abilities to others in the medical community. These included claims she lied during audits, had a worse research record, did not know how to perform research properly, and did not work well with others.
Through the lawsuit, Dr. Pinter-Brown sought damages for lost income, emotional distress, punitive damages for oppressive conduct, damage to her career, and attorneys’ fees and costs stemming from UCLA’s alleged intentional discrimination, harassment, and defamation, culminating in her constructive termination.
Injury
Dr. Pinter-Brown suffered significant economic injuries as a consequence of the defendants’ alleged Gender discrimination, retaliatory, and unlawful conduct towards her. These included lost past and future income, employment benefits, wages, and overtime pay. She also incurred unpaid expenses related to her employment and faced penalties and interest on unpaid wages. The abrupt termination of her longstanding role at UCLA deprived her of continued earnings and compensation. Her career advancement was halted. Additionally, the harm to her reputation made it difficult to pursue other opportunities commensurate with her experience and qualifications.
In addition to the economic losses, Dr. Pinter-Brown experienced severe non-economic injuries. These included emotional distress, humiliation, mental pain and anguish, and physical pain and suffering. Being subjected to an allegedly hostile work environment of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and unfair treatment took a significant toll on her well-being. This environment affected her both psychologically and physically. The repeated devaluing of her skills, accomplishments, and capabilities through pay disparities and defamatory statements was an extremely humiliating experience. The totality of the circumstances she endured over years at UCLA ultimately forced her into an involuntary resignation. This added to her mental anguish.
Damages
Through the lawsuit, Dr. Pinter-Brown sought damages for lost income, emotional distress, punitive damages for oppressive conduct, damage to her career, and attorneys’ fees and costs stemming from UCLA’s alleged gender discrimination, harassment, and defamation, culminating in her constructive termination.
Jury Verdict
The jury found that the Regents of the University of California constructively discharged Dr. Lauren Pinter-Brown from her employment. The jury determined that Dr. Pinter-Brown’s gender was a substantial motivating reason behind the Regents’ constructive discharge of her. The constructive discharge was also found to be a substantial factor that caused harm to Dr. Pinter-Brown.
Regarding damages, the jury awarded $2.1 million for past economic loss. Looking forward, they awarded $2.5 million for future economic losses. To compensate for non-economic damages Dr. Pinter-Brown endured in the past, the jury awarded $5.0 million. They also awarded $4.4 million for future non-economic losses. In total, amount of damages awarded to Dr. Lauren Pinter-Brown was $14 million.
Court Documents: Available upon Request
Leave A Comment