Melinda Brantley vs. Zurich American Insurance Company

Case Background

On December 12, 2018, Plaintiff Melinda Brentley filed a Defamation lawsuit in the California State Superior Court of Sacramento County (Case number: 34-2018-00246315-CU-DF-GDS). Judge Jeffrey S. Galvin presided over the case.

Cause

Melinda Brantley began working at Zurich American Insurance Company in July 2005 as a Senior Claims Examiner. She briefly left in December 2011 but returned in December 2012, retaining her seniority. In October 2013, Zurich promoted Brantley to Workers’ Compensation Team Manager, where she oversaw a team of 10-12 professionals. Her supervisor, Chris Omen, was the Assistant Vice President of Workers’ Compensation at Zurich’s Rancho Cordova branch.

From around 2013 until his departure, Omen instituted an unofficial reward system known as “Omen Days”—free paid time off (PTO) given to high-performing employees. These days were not recorded in Zurich’s official PTO system. Brantley used Omen Days on multiple occasions between 2015 and 2017, always with Omen’s explicit approval. This practice was widely known and utilized throughout the Rancho Cordova branch.

In October 2017, Omen left Zurich and was replaced by Toneta Snyder. On December 19, 2017, Snyder and HR representative Andrew Atkinson questioned Brantley about her unrecorded absences. She explained the Omen Days system. Despite her explanation, on December 20, 2017, Zurich deducted 60 PTO hours from her accrued balance and terminated her employment via phone call. Neil DeBlock, a Zurich executive, sent an email to several colleagues accusing Brantley of employee theft, lack of integrity, dishonest behavior, and poor leadership.

Injuries

As a direct result of her termination and the defamatory statements, Brantley suffered significant personal and professional harm. Her reputation, both in her immediate professional circle and the wider insurance industry, was severely damaged. This reputational harm made it difficult for her to secure new employment, leading to substantial economic losses, including lost wages, benefits, and future earning potential.

Brantley experienced severe emotional distress, which manifested in physical symptoms. She suffered from anxiety, depression, insomnia, restless sleep, fatigue, and loss of concentration. The sudden job loss and the false accusations caused her to feel embarrassed, humiliated, and fearful about her future career prospects.

The financial impact of her termination was compounded by Zurich’s deduction of her accrued PTO hours, which represented a tangible monetary loss. Furthermore, the widespread dissemination of the false allegations within Zurich and possibly to other companies in the industry created a long-lasting negative impact on her employability and professional relationships.

Damages

Brantley sought various forms of relief, including compensatory damages for lost wages and non-economic harm, punitive damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Melinda Brantley
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Lawrance A. Bohm| Andrew C. Kim |  Daniel T. Newman
  • Defendant(s):Zurich American Insurance Company | Toneta Snyder | Neil DeBlock
    • Counsel for Defendants: Derek S. Sachs| George J. Theofani

Claims

Brantley filed a lawsuit against Zurich American Insurance Company, Toneta Snyder, Neil DeBlock, and other unnamed defendants, asserting three main causes of action:

Defamation: Brantley alleged that the defendants made false and unprivileged statements about her, both orally and in writing, that harmed her personal and professional reputation. These statements, which included accusations of employee theft, lack of integrity, and dishonest behavior, constituted defamation per se.

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy: Brantley asserted that Zurich terminated her employment in violation of public policies. These policies were codified in California Civil Code sections 43, 45, 46, and 52.1, Labor Code 227.3, and the Constitutions of the United States and California. She claimed her termination was directly related to false accusations of theft and the improper deduction of her PTO hours.

Violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 52.1): Brantley alleged that the defendants interfered with her constitutional rights through threats, intimidation, and coercion. She claimed they violated her right to protection from defamation. Additionally, they infringed on her constitutional right to privacy and her right to acquire, possess, and protect property.

Defense

The defendants denied most of the allegations in the complaint. They admitted some basic facts about Brantley’s employment dates and certain events but denied any wrongdoing. The defendants asserted that their actions toward Brantley were legitimate, non-discriminatory, and taken for business reasons. They claimed Brantley failed to state a valid legal claim and that her lawsuit was barred by various legal doctrines and time limitations. The defendants argued they had acted reasonably and in good faith at all times. They denied making any defamatory statements about Brantley or wrongfully terminating her. The defendants asserted numerous affirmative defenses, including that Brantley had failed to mitigate damages, that she had made speculative claims, and that they had made privileged statements.They asked the court to dismiss the complaint and award them attorneys’ fees and costs.

Jury Verdict

 

On April 17, 2024, the jury awarded Melinda Brantley a total of $2,886,374 in damages in a Defamation lawsuit, broken down as follows:

  • Past Economic Damages (harm to property, business, trade, profession, or occupation, including loss of employment): $715,316
  • Future Economic Damages (same categories): $1,571,058
  • Past Non-Economic Damages:
    • Shame, mortification, or hurt feelings: $300,000
    • Harm to reputation: $300,000

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request