Get spanked for $1.7 million dollars

[GrantDawg]

Jury Awards $1.7M to Woman Spanked at Work

By JULIANA BARBASSA
Associated Press Writer
FRESNO, Calif. — A woman who was spanked in front of her co-workers in what her employer called a camaraderie-building exercise has been awarded $1.7 million.
Janet Orlando, 53, was subjected to sexual harassment and sexual battery when she was paddled on the rear end two years ago at home security company Alarm One Inc., a jury ruled Friday.
The jury of six men and six women said Orlando did not suffer from sexual assault as she had alleged.
Jurors awarded Orlando $10,000 for economic loss, $40,000 for future medical costs and $450,000 for emotional distress, pain and suffering. They awarded her $1.2 million in punitive damages.
Orlando's attorney, Nicholas "Butch" Wagner, did not return calls for comment.
K. Poncho Baker, an attorney for Alarm One, said the award was excessive.
"I think the jury was so upset at Alarm One that they went overboard," Baker said. "Not to say that what Alarm One did was right, but this allows her to manipulate the system."
Orlando quit in 2004, less than a year after she was hired at the Fresno office, saying she was humiliated during the company's team-building practices.
Employees were paddled with rival companies' yard signs as part of a contest that pitted sales teams against each other, according to court documents. The winners poked fun at the losers, throwing pies at them, feeding them baby food, making them wear diapers and swatting their buttocks.
Lawyers for Alarm One, an Anaheim-based, 300-employee company, said the spankings were not discriminatory because they were given to both male and female workers and that Orlando and others willingly took part. The company has since abandoned the practice.
During the trial, company attorneys revealed that Orlando had sued a previous employer, also claiming that she had been sexually harassed.

[Galaxy]

Wait, was the spanking contest voluntary? Or was she forced to particate?

[cuervo72]

"Butch"? Poncho? Are these lawyers or banditos?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Wait, was the spanking contest voluntary? Or was she forced to particate?

regardless it's idiotic.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Lathum

regardless it's idiotic.

The award/lawsuit or the practice? I agree in the practice is stupid, but if she choose to particate, isn't she just as stupid?

[molson]

Where do I sign up?

I don't have a problem with a company like this getting hit with this kind of judgment, but maybe all "punitive damages" should go to charity or something.

When I was going to Syracuse, a couple of students got a multi-million dollar settlements because they got harassed and groped by a tennis coach. It just seemed so ridiculous - two chicks, my age, suddenly set for life because they were lucky enough to have a dirty old man for a tennis coach. There were probably at least 500 unwanted gropings that weekend in the city of Syracuse, they were just lucky enough to be subject to the one performed by a School employee with authority.

[Galaxy]

Aren't puntive damage amounts usually reduced by the judge?

[Franklinnoble]

This is a company with like 300 employees. If this judgement stands, it'll go out of business.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The award/lawsuit or the practice? I agree in the practice is stupid, but if she choose to particate, isn't she just as stupid?

Given her history it looks like she got what she wanted. So, no.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

This is a company with like 300 employees. If this judgement stands, it'll go out of business.

Most, if not all, will be paid by insurance. Not likely to bankrupt the company (unless they are stupid enough not to have insurance).

[molson]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The award/lawsuit or the practice? I agree in the practice is stupid, but if she choose to particate, isn't she just as stupid?

The lady got $1.7 million (less atttorney/court fees) for a spanking. I'd call her a genius.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by molson

The lady got $1.7 million (less atttorney/court fees) for a spanking. I'd call her a genius.

We live in sue-happy country. I would expect it.

[judicial clerk]

Most, if not all, will be paid by insurance. Not likely to bankrupt the company (unless they are stupid enough not to have insurance).

I don't think that liability insurance policies typically cover punitive damages.

She will probably get about one third of the punitive damages award.

Th defendant will probably appaeal and settle for some smaller amount

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I don't think that liability insurance policies typically cover punitive damages.

She will probably get about one third of the punitive damages award.

Th defendant will probably appaeal and settle for some smaller amount

Depends on the state and the policy. Most policies do, but in certain states (such as New York) it is not allowed.

[digamma]

what judicial clerk said.

[AlexB]

I fail to see how this is sexual harassment... she willingly particpated and the 'punishment' was the same for both male and female.

Was the entire thing dumb? Yes. Is this sexual harassment? No. Is this worth 1.7m (any currency)? Hell no. Is she laughing right now? Hell yes.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I fail to see how this is sexual harassment... she willingly particpated and the 'punishment' was the same for both male and female.

Was the entire thing dumb? Yes. Is this sexual harassment? No. Is this worth 1.7m (any currency)? Hell no. Is she laughing right now? Hell yes.

Always did curious, do you have to pay income taxes on that, 35% on that amount (because it would fall into the top income bracket)?

But I am guessing that it will be a while before she gets it, because I am sure the defendant will file an appeal?

[AlexB]

Dunno - only just found out that game-show winnings are subject to tax. And did you stress 35% just to annoy us Brits - anything over £32k we're on 40% - just not right, with 17.5% VAT, stamp duty, inheritance tax, petrol/diesel tax, beer tax, the 'I'm going to pinch a bit more of your money but I can't be arsed to think of a justifiable reason' tax...

[Glengoyne]

Go Fresno!!

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Dunno - only just found out that game-show winnings are subject to tax. And did you stress 35% just to annoy us Brits - anything over £32k we're on 40% - just not right, with 17.5% VAT, stamp duty, inheritance tax, petrol/diesel tax, beer tax, the 'I'm going to pinch a bit more of your money but I can't be arsed to think of a justifiable reason' tax...

What I find amazing is the strength of your pound/sterling compared to our dollar.

[Hawglaw]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Depends on the state and the policy. Most policies do, but in certain states (such as New York) it is not allowed.

Most policies DO NOT. You have to get a separate EPL (Employment Practices Liability) policy to cover this sort of thing. An employer with only 300 employee is very unlikely to be able to afford the premiums. It ain't cheap.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Dunno - only just found out that game-show winnings are subject to tax. And did you stress 35% just to annoy us Brits - anything over £32k we're on 40% - just not right, with 17.5% VAT, stamp duty, inheritance tax, petrol/diesel tax, beer tax, the 'I'm going to pinch a bit more of your money but I can't be arsed to think of a justifiable reason' tax...

Isn't Britian lower tax-wise then your European partners? Any chance of cutting taxes to compete with those who are being aggressive in doing so?

[clintl]

I don't have a problem with her getting punitive damages. Was $1.2 million excessive? Maybe. It depends on the evidence the jury heard. But only a bunch of idiots with a sadistic streak would design an exercise like that and call it "team-building."

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by clintl

I don't have a problem with her getting punitive damages. Was $1.2 million excessive? Maybe. It depends on the evidence the jury heard. But only a bunch of idiots with a sadistic streak would design an exercise like that and call it "team-building."

I agree with you on the idiot part, but isn't she also an idiot for taking part?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I agree with you on the idiot part, but isn't she also an idiot for taking part?

She certainly has low self-confidence. But "voluntariness" isn't a determanitive factor in a sexual harrasment claim. If a boss says, "why don't you wear something a little sexier tomorrow?", its still sexual harassment if the employee does it. The boss is inherently coercive, because of his position of power. This is the same thing.

[Greyroofoo]

to me "voluntary" can mean...
1.) To do something of your own free will.
2.) To do something of your own free will, but something bad will happen if you don't do it. (i.e. get fired)

So couldn't every employee now sue the company? At least any employee that got spanked?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

So couldn't every employee now sue the company? At least any employee that got spanked?

They could, but only if they could show evidence of damages (economic loss, medical costs, emotional damages). This chick probably had testimony from friends that she's "changed" since the incident, etc, that this incident caused her to leave the job, that she had to see a psychologist afterwards, etc. Sure, it may sound like any employee could come up with a case like that, but we weren't in the court to here the actual evidence. And if someone else from that company were to bring a suit now, they'd be torn apart on cross examination.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by molson

They could, but only if they could show evidence of damages (economic loss, medical costs, emotional damages). This chick probably had testimony from friends that she's "changed" since the incident, etc, that this incident caused her to leave the job, that she had to see a psychologist afterwards, etc. Sure, it may sound like any employee could come up with a case like that, but we weren't in the court to here the actual evidence. And if someone else from that company were to bring a suit now, they'd be torn apart on cross examination.

so in other words she gets money because she's weak and fragile?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

so in other words she gets money because she's weak and fragile?

Yup, that's pretty much it.

It's like the Torts "eggshell" theory - if you punch a guy in the head, and it turns out that he has some skull condition, and he's killed, you're liable for the death, even though the same punch wouldn't have seriously injured anyone else.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I agree with you on the idiot part, but isn't she also an idiot for taking part?

Perhaps. But does the article explain the methods the company used to "persuade" employees to participate? No. Does anyone referred to in the article other than the company itself say that the participants willingly participated? No. Presumably the jury heard all about both issues, though. I'm not going to second guess the jury's decision regarding an activity that was clearly way outside the bounds any company should expect to be able to subject its employees to without significant consequences.

[TroyF]

Employees were paddled with rival companies' yard signs as part of a contest that pitted sales teams against each other, according to court documents. The winners poked fun at the losers, throwing pies at them, feeding them baby food, making them wear diapers and swatting their buttocks.

OK, maybe she doesn't deserve all the money. On the other hand, a company who condones this is simply out of control. Had you showed me this snippet without me having any idea the rest of the story, I'd have predicted someone was getting a ton of cash in a lawsuit.

I believe I saw another article that said the company stopped the practice after someone was injured.

If the settlement doesn't force the company to shut down, I sure as hell hope they at least replace the HR department.

[Critch]

I'd be prepared to take a lot more than just a spanking for $1.7 million.

[Greyroofoo]

I bet there's many a jealous prostitute from this.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by clintl

Perhaps. But does the article explain the methods the company used to "persuade" employees to participate? No. Does anyone referred to in the article other than the company itself say that the participants willingly participated? No. Presumably the jury heard all about both issues, though. I'm not going to second guess the jury's decision regarding an activity that was clearly way outside the bounds any company should expect to be able to subject its employees to without significant consequences.

Just not much to go on...

[Mustang]

I wonder what she volunteered for. I mean, if they put it all in front of her - We are having a team building exercise where if you lose, you will have to wear diapers, eat baby food, be swatted with signs, etc and she agreed to that, then she really shouldn't get anything and this is pointless..

Now, if she agree to a team building exercise and all this spun out of control and devolved into this... well... not saying she should get $1.7M but, I can see her point. Then again, I'm not a big fan of hazing. If I was in management, there would be absolutely no way this would have happened.