Pennsylvania Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Sandra S. Robertson (Female, 40s)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Timothy P. O’Brien;
Law Office of Timothy P. O’Brien;
Pittsburgh,
PA,
for
Sandra S. Robertson ■ John Stember;
Stember Cohn & Davidson-Welling;
Pittsburgh,
PA,
for
Sandra S. Robertson ■ Maureen Davidson-Welling;
Stember Cohn & Davidson-Welling;
Pittsburgh,
PA,
for
Sandra S. Robertson

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Brett Creasy; C.C.E.; Computer Forensics; Pittsburgh,
PA called by:
Timothy P. O’Brien, John Stember, Maureen Davidson-Welling ■ Brittany Edge; L.M.F.T.; Psychology/Counseling; Hunker,
PA called by:
Timothy P. O’Brien, John Stember, Maureen Davidson-Welling

Defendant(s):

Hunter Panels LLC, 

Carlisle Construction Materials Inc.

Defense Attorney(s):

Julie A. Donahue;
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Philadelphia,
PA,
for
Hunter Panels LLC, Carlisle Construction Materials Inc. ■ Patrick J. Fazzini;
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Pittsburgh,
PA,
for
Hunter Panels LLC, Carlisle Construction Materials Inc. ■ Maria Greco Danaher;
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.;
Pittsburgh,
PA,
for
Hunter Panels LLC, Carlisle Construction Materials Inc.

In April 2012, plaintiff Sandra Robertson, in her mid-40s, was terminated from her employment at Hunter Panels LLC, of Smithfield. She had been hired in June 2006 to perform inventory and equipment management for the company, which makes thermal insulation panels used in construction. She was quickly promoted, becoming the only female supervisor/manager. However, Robinson claimed that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about harassment and a hostile work environment and for accusing the company of running an "old boys’ club," after the plant manager repeatedly refused to act on her complaints. Robertson maintained that she had reported that sexist language had been used toward her and that other supervisors spread false allegations that she was "abrasive and demeaning." She stated that her male supervisors and co-workers routinely called her a "b-ch," and a co-worker always answered her phone calls with, "F–k you, Sandy." According to Robertson, when she first complained, in the summer of 2011, the company sent her to a mandatory anger-management program, although the counselor told her she did not need it. The next few months went well, and in January 2012, she received a stellar evaluation. However, a few months later, Robertson again complained about ongoing harassment, and she was fired for her "management style." Robertson sued Hunter Panels and its parent, Carlisle Construction Materials Inc., as joint employers, on claims of gender discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and violations under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Robertson’s counsel cited testimony of a male subordinate, who described Robertson as the best supervisor he’d ever had. According to the witness, a supervisor called him a "spineless f–king traitor" for requesting a transfer to Robertson’s department. In addition, according to Robertson’s counsel, the plant manager’s secretary provided testimony that she had warned the manager about the harassment and said that he needed to address it, but he ignored her. Robertson asserted that the company accused her of wanting to "play by her own rules," but her counsel indicated that Robinson was a team player, as a 20-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force who rose to master sergeant with responsibility for ensuring the availability of needed parts and equipment for aircrafts. Robertson claimed that the company created electronic documents to support her termination only after she complained about harassment. Her expert in computer forensics analyzed the documents, and opined that Hunter and Carlisle created a number of these documents only after she complained. The dates noted on the documents were reportedly at odds with the documents’ metadata (i.e., when the electronic document was actually created, by whom, and how many times it was saved). The documents proved that Hunter and Carlisle retaliated against her, maintained Robertson’s counsel. The counselor who saw Robertson on three occasions in the company’s anger-management program testified that Robertson did not have anger-management problems, and characterized her as a perfectionist. The defense maintained that Robertson was angry, rude, and unprofessional, and that her insubordinate behavior prompted her termination. The defense noted that Robertson was good at her job, but she was unable to let things go, and she was combative with the production department, who shared space with Robertson’s department. The defense disputed the findings of Robertson’s expert in computer forensics.

Robertson sought to recover approximately $170,000 in back pay. In her claim for front pay, Robertson’s counsel presented her earnings from her tenure at Hunter. After she was terminated from the company, she was reportedly unable to find a job, which prompted her to go back to school. She was slated to receive her undergraduate degree in spring 2015. Robertson claimed that her termination "discombobulated" her life, and resulted in bouts of depression and anxiety, temporary vision loss in one eye, neck and low-back pain, kidney stones, migraines, and weight loss of 185 pounds. Her husband testified that Hunter "took his wife away from him." Robertson sought compensatory damages. In her claim for punitive damages, Robertson’s counsel asserted that Hunter had malicious and reckless disregard of Robertson’s rights. Moreover, according to her counsel, Carlisle Construction Materials had ample resources, with 27 plants worldwide, earned nearly $2 billion in net sales in 2014, had roughly $1 billion in assets, and had 4 million square feet under lease.

The jury found that Hunter and Carlisle discriminated against Robertson because of her gender, that they subjected her to a hostile work environment because of her gender, and that they unlawfully retaliated against her when they terminated her employment. According to jurors, Robertson experienced emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary loss, due to Hunter and Carlisle’s conduct. Robertson was determined to receive $92,000. The jury further determined that Hunter and Carlisle acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally and state protected rights of Robertson, who was determined to receive $12.5 million in punitive damages.

Sandra S. Robertson: $12,500,000 Personal Injury: Punitive Exemplary Damages; $400,000 Personal Injury: damages under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act; $170,000 Personal Injury: back pay; $350,000 Personal Injury: front pay

Judge:

Joy Flowers Conti

Trial Length:

2
 weeks

Trial Deliberations:

1
 days

Post Trial:

The parties settled for an undisclosed amount.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.