Martin v. Texaco "... in the last ten to twenty years, women have not made much progress."

A jury in Los Angeles Superior Court returned the largest amount ever awarded in a sex discrimination case last week: $6.9 million. Almost as newsworthy is the near-blackout level of media coverage of this story. For example, the New York Times ran a brief wire item; Dick Stevenson in the Times's Los Angeles office did not follow the case and expressed surprise that anyone would be interested in it. The Wall Street Journal's article appeared on the last page of Section B, and incorrectly stated the amount of the judgment. The Los Angeles Times did follow the case and reported on it; no other major metropolitan newspaper mentioned it.

The $6.9 million judgment does not include punitive damages, although Judge Ronald Cappai expressed concern that the jury effectively included punitives in the amount, and he may overrule their decision. Further hearings on punitive damages are due in early October, and the amount awarded to plaintiff Janella Sue Martin, who still works for Texaco, could go higher still. Martin's lawyer, Dan Stormer of Hadsell and Stormer, told DataLine that the final amount, whatever it is, will be doubled because the case was filed not only under California's Fair Employment and Housing Law, but also under Labor Code 690.

In defending Texaco, attorneys with Paul, Hastings, Walker and Janofsky claimed that Texaco's management reflected the workplace of the last twenty years. The jury, it appears, was more impressed by the actual data the company presented: of 54,000 employees, they had four women managers. ("Manager" was defined by Texaco itself as anyone in the top seven pay grades of their grade levels 0 - 24.) Countering Texaco's defense, Martin's attorney showed that she was denied one promotion because it would require travel to Latin America and South Africa, where she might be "raped or murdered". Stormer also successfully demonstrated to the jury the cumulative effect on Janella Sue Martin of years of discrimination.

Labor attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants agree that the judgment will most likely be reduced. Cliff Palefsky of McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky commented that "most verdicts of this size get reduced, regardless of the merits of the case", and added that he believes that the judgment may reflect jurors' lack of sympathy with "the big corporation/big law firm defense". Another Los Angeles Superior Court watcher who attended the trial observed that the jury seemed to react to Texaco's "persistently sexist defense", which he characterized for DataLine as the "she's a whining bitch" defense. Palefsky also admitted to being somewhat mystified by "the corporate mind, which doesn't appear to be much affected by large judgments and doesn't do much soul-searching after a large verdict."

Dan Stormer has agreed to discuss this case with DataLine in detail after the issue of punitive damages has been settled; our calls to Paul, Hastings, et. al. have not been returned. Texaco's corporate headquarters in White Plains, New York, referred DataLine to Lowell Elsen, head of Texaco's regional legal group in Los Angeles. Elsen told DataLine that he had just relocated to Southern California from Texaco's regional office in New Orleans one week before, and could not comment on the case because "it's still pending". We asked Elsen about the statistics presented by Texaco - four women managers out of 54,000 employees. He said, "I'm not surprised, I don't find them terribly unusual", and went on to describe his graduating law school class in Chicago in 1962: there were 96 men and 2 women. But he added that he is "alarmed" that Texaco's numbers show "in the last ten to twenty years, women have not made much progress."