Date: 04-19-2024

Case Style:

Melinda Brantley, et al. v. Zurich American Insurance, et al.

Case Number: 34-2018-00246315

Judge: Jeffrey S. Galvin

Court: Superior Court, Sacramento County, California

Plaintiff's Attorney: Lawrance Alexander Bohm andKelsey Ciarimboli, Jack C. Brouwer, M. Noah Cowart, Chapman C. Chan

Defendant's Attorney: Marcus J. Lee and Jessican Pliner

Description: Sacramento, California employment law lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued on wrongful termination theories.
Zurich Insurance was founded in Switzerland in 1872. The company expanded into North America in 1912 to become a leading provider of commercial property-casualty insurance solutions and services in the U.S. and Canada. A wholly owned subsidiary of the Zurich Insurance Group, Zurich North American Insurance Company offers insurance to 90% of the company’s listed as Fortune 500 and is headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinios. Zurich publicly claims that it aspires to be one of the most responsible and impactful businesses in the world. “At Zurich North America our values guide our decisions and integrity fuels our actions. We are one team and value the diversity and potential of every individual. We embrace new ideas to exceed expectations. We deliver on our promises and stand up for what is right.”

Plaintiff Daniel Koos (“Koos”) Begins Employment

On or around April 20, 2000, Koos (age 59) started his employment at Zurich Insurance, 17 years ago as a Claims Examiner in San Francisco, California. On average, Koos was responsible for approximately 150 Workers’ Compensation Claims at a time.

In or around 2001, Koos transferred to the Rancho Cordova branch. Koos was promoted to Team Manager. Koos supervised about five people. At all times prior to termination Mr. Koos was regarded as an outstanding manager and employee. Mr. Koos is active in his church and community outreach, he is married and has two grown daughters.

2005 – Supervisor Christopher Omen (“Omen”) Begins Employment

In or around 2005, Christopher Omen started working for Zurich as an Assistant Vice President of Workers’ Compensation Northwest Region. Mr. Omen supervised approximately 50-70 employees located in three separate offices including San Francisco, Sacramento and Las Vegas. Mr. Omen was one of 7 Assistant Vice Presidents managing Zurich Workers’s compensation claims in the United States. All Assistant Vice Presidents are supervised by a National Vices President who reports to the the “C-suite” of Zurich. At all times prior to termination Ms. Brantley was regarded as an outstanding team manager and employee.

2005 – Plaintiff Nicholas Lardie (“Lardie”) Begins Employment

In or around June 2005, Mr. Nicholas Lardie (Age 57) started his employment at Zurich Insurance as a Team Manager in the Rancho Cordova Branch. Mr. Lardie’s former supervisor at his previous employer, Christopher Omen, recruited Mr. Lardie to Zurich Insurance. At all times prior to termination Mr. Lardie was regarded as an outstanding manager and employee. Mr. Lardie is married with one grown child and teenage twins. At all times prior to termination Mr. Lardie was regarded as an outstanding team manager and employee.

2005 – Plaintiff Melinda Brantley (“Brantley”) Begins Employment

On or around July 11, 2005, Ms. Brantley started her employment at Zurich Insurance as a Senior Claims Examiner. Ms. Brantley’s mother and father both worked as workers compensation insurance professionals. Ms. Brantley began her career working with her mother at State Compensation Insurance Fund.

On or around December 27, 2011, Brantley briefly left her employment at Zurich Insurance to work at another company.

In or around December 2012, Brantley returned to Zurich as a Senior Claims Examiner in the Rancho Cordova branch. She returned with full seniority, providing her with the benefits of a seven-year employee rather than a new employee. Her job duties included handling Workers’ Compensation claims of medium to high exposure for global corporate and middle market accounts – coverage investigation, determination of liability and damages, reserving payments, benefits notices, and medical treatment.

In or around October 2013, Brantley was promoted to Workers’ Compensation Team Manager. Brantley was responsible for leading and directing a team of 10 to 12 Technical Claim Professionals in low to high exposure claims in Worker’s Compensation. Brantley’s supervisor was Chris Omen, Assistant Vice President of Workers’ Compensation.

For three years prior to her termination Mr. Omen ranked Ms. Brantley as his highest performing manager. Mr. Omen identified Ms. Brantley as a candidate to become an Assistant Vice President and went on to say that she would likely become a “C-suite” member one day.

Ms. Brantley is married. At all times prior to termination Ms. Brantley was regarded as an outstanding team manager and employee.

Rancho Cordova Branch is Top Branch Nationally

For more than a decade Mr. Omen and his team of managers successfully managed thousands of claims filed by injured workers against Fortune 500 employers in the Northwest Region. Mr. Omen and his office were repeated ranked in the top tier of the company’s performance metrics. This office led in key performance aspects as well as metrics concerning employee engagement and retention. Despite the intense work demand and long hours, resignations were rare and employees were happy.

“Off the Record” PTO – also known as “Omen Days” – was a Well-Known Performance Reward.

The Rancho Cordova branch of Zurich’s Workers’ Compenstion (“WC”) division included approximately 20-30 line level WC claims adjusters. These adjusters were managed in 3 teams led by a Team Manager for each team. Each Team Manager was directly supervised by Mr. Chris Omen, Assistant Vice President of Workers’ Compensation Claims from approximately 2004 until October 2017. In addition to the Team Managers, “Team Leads” with no subordinates were also directly supervised by Mr. Omen. This same structure applied to the San Francisco office which was also managed by Mr. Omen. Each office employed approximately 30 WC claims personnel. Mr. Omen was the most senior Zurich Employee in charge of both the San Francisco and Rancho Cordova offices since at least 2008.

Staff hiring and retention were always critical objectives within the Workers’ Compensation Claims division and in the Northwest Region territory. Sometime after becoming Assistant Vice President (“AVP”) for the Rancho Cordova branch, Mr. Omen utilized “off the record” paid time off (“PTO”) (meaning time taken off work but not entered into the company’s official PTO system so “official” PTO balance would not decrease) as an employment for employees who put in effort far beyond what was expected of the position to reward hard work and dedication. Mr. Omen also used “off the record” PPT to incentivize prospective employment candidates Mr. Omen with to recruit. Since Zurich’s amount of PTO scales the longer you are with the company, new hires begin with an entry level amount of PTO (19 days) as compared to employees like Plaintiffs working with Zurich for 10-19 years (29 days). Employees leaving other jobs with higher amounts of PTO would be enticed to work with Zurich by Mr. Omen by providing extra “off the record” PTO hours so the employee leaving a job with, for example, 25 PTO days will not experience a reduction of the benefit coming to Zurich’s lower starting PTO benefit. Mr. Omen testified this approach was taken with his boss’s knowledge, support, and encouragement because it was a way to offer better compensation without impacting increasing operational expense.

Beginning in or about January 2014, Mr. Omen also began using “unofficial PTO” as a performance incentive to reward outstanding conduct of claims adjusters who achieved outstanding individual results. In or about December 2013, at a regional team meeting in San Francisco, the Vice President of Workers’ Compensation, Mr. Peter McCarron was visiting. Mr. Omen and his team managers from Rancho Cordova and San Francisco were all present. During the course of the meeting, it was discussed that one of the line level adjusters received an outstanding audit score. Mr. McCarron posed the question of whether there was any way to reward the employee without increasing costs for the company. At that time, it was suggested that “off the record” PTO used also be used as a performance reward for adjuster with outstanding audit scores. Again, it was emphasized that this would not actually increase budgeted expense to the company. It was suggested that employees in the “95 club” (audit score of 95 or better) should receive the benefit. Mr. McCarron enthusiastically agreed and encouraged Mr. Omen to use this approach moving forward. Moving forward from 2014, Mr. Omen instructed his subordinate managers to provide “off the record” PTO to the “95 club”. Mr. Omen also provided his subordinate managers occasional “off the record” PTO in recognition of their outstanding work.

Continuing from approximately 2014 through his termination, Mr. Omen offered “off the record” PTO to employees based on performance, as well as a hiring incentive for prospective employees. Employees in Mr. Omen’s division referred to the “off the record” PTO as “Omen Days.” When an employee used “Omen Days” they were instructed not to use any of Zurich’s official paid time off. Typically, Mr. Omen instructed the employee to “take a day off” or he would delete the time off requests in the system stating, “It’s on me.” This indicated that the employee earned the time off without reducing available PTO. (Use of “off the record” PTO was not entered into the company’s system and hence would not cause a reduction of the employee’s PTO balance.) On August 4, 2017, Mr. Omen told Ms. Brantley in an email, “I love the idea of you or other superstars being able to take vacation on me, and get the big payout at years’ end. . . a second bonus if you will. Win Win.” Similar sentiments were expressed to Mr. Lardie and Mr. Koos.

While “Omen Days” were the days rewarded by Mr. Omen, the practice of rewarding “off the record” PTO took place in other offices too, according to Mr. Omen’s testimony and text messages to Ms. Brantley. At least two termination decision makers, Ms. Toneta Snyder and Mr. DeBlock, were believed to have engaged in the same practice.

In or around December 2017, Plaintiff Koos spoke to Mr. Omen who stated that “Omen Days” were a legitimate form of reward, and he was not the only one.

The entire Rancho Cordova branch was aware of and benefited from this unofficial rewards program. “Omen Days” were essentially the nomenclature of Mr. Omen’s ad hoc policy of awarding a bonus for good performance. Three subordinate employees, Bonnie Bridgewater, Jed Landmark and Pavel Zubritsky each testified that they received and used “Omen Days” without any concern or discipline.

Niel DeBlock is Promoted to Vice President of Workers’ Compensation.

From approximately 2008 until 2017, Mr. DeBlock was working as a peer to Mr. Omen as the AVP for the North Central Region. Before becoming AVP, Mr. DeBlock worked in the Los Angeles area as the head of that branch. He hired Ms. Toneta Snyder in 2001. Mr. DeBlock and Ms. Snyder became close personal friends after two years working together, including socializing outside of work and visiting each other’s homes until Mr. DeBlock transferred away to the North Central Region. When Mr. DeBlock left Los Angeles, he had been grooming Ms. Snyder to take over Los Angeles as his replacement. As hoped, in 2011, Ms. Snyder was promoted to AVP over the Los Angeles office. Ms. Snyder attended Mr. DeBlock’s weeding that same year. In March 2017, Mr. DeBlock was promoted to the Vice President of Workers’ Compensation, the same position once held by Mr. McCarran. With his promotion, Mr. DeBlock went from being a rival of Mr. Omen to being his boss. At this point the relationship between Mr. DeBlock and Mr. Omen became strained. The two men did not get along. Within months of his promotion Mr. DeBlock hired a former team manager from his North Central team to be one of his seven Assistant Managers.

Mr. Omen is Terminated by Mr. DeBlock

In October 2017, less than a year after Mr. DeBlock’s promotion, he made his first termination decision. Mr. Omen was fired by Mr. DeBlock because the top performing Rancho Cordova failed a California State audit. Zurich admits the termination of Mr. Omen had nothing to do with his practice of “off the record” PTO. While it is true the office failed the state audit the failure was mostly due to Zurich’s decision to send administrative support for claims services to India which resulted late and inaccurate payments.

Mr. DeBlock Selects his Friend and Mentee to Replace Mr. Omen

After Mr. Omen’s termination, Ms. Brantley, Mr. Lardie, and Mr. Koos all expressed interest in promoting to Mr. Omen’s job. Mr. Omen had specifically identified Ms. Brantley and Mr. Lardie in his “succession” plan that he submitted to Zurich. Rather than selecting a high performing manager local to the office to fill the gap left by Mr. Omen, Mr. DeBlock chose his close friend and mentee Ms. Snyder for the task. Mr. DeBlock was grooming Ms. Snyder to one day become his replacement as a Vice President over these offices. (Ms. Snyder was eventually promoted to Vice President of the Western Region in 2022.) By mid-November, Ms. Snyder was appointed branch manager. At this time Ms. Snyder did not want added responsibility of running the Rancho Cordova because of wok/life balance working the office from Southern California. Plaintiffs reported to Ms. Snyder until after Plaintiffs were fired. Afterward Mr. DeBlock hired another former North Central Team Manger who was also a friend of Mr. DeBlock. When the replacement departed, Ms. Snyder took over the role once sought by Mr. Lardie, Ms. Brantley, and Mr. Koos.

Ms. Snyder’s Mistaken “Realizations”

Ms. Snyder claims that sometime in November 2017 she “realized” that Ms. Brantley did not enter PTO hours for time she took off work in January 2017. Although Ms. Snyder was not Ms. Brantley’s supervisor at the time (Mr. Omen was), she “recalled” that one of her subordinates was working a joint project with Ms. Brantley but was unable to do so in January 2017 because Ms. Brantley was on vacation. This is not true. Ms. Brantley did not take any vacation in January 2017. Ms. Snyder also “realized” that either Mr. Koos or Mr. Lardie asked to take PTO in November but that she did not see that time indicated in the system. Mr. Koos made no such request. Mr. Lardie mentioned he might take PTO time but ultimately ended up working from home. As a result of these “realizations”, Ms. Snyder claims she suspected that Plaintiffs were taking PTO but were not entering it into the system. It is not a coincidence that both of Ms. Snyder’s “realizations” were based upon false assumptions. In reality, Ms. Snyder was beginning the process of “cleaning house” of any who would challenge Mr. DeBlock’s plan of filling Zurich with his cronies. For obvious reasons Neither Ms. Snyder nor Mr. DeBlock could admit or disclose that the terminations were a part of Mr. DeBlock’s cronyism which is prohibited by Zurich’s Code of Conduct which promises “fairness” toward all employees. Thus, a pretext was required. The pretext would be that Plaintiffs “stole” the time from the company that was given to them by Mr. Omen. And as part of this lie, Zurich’s agents falsely contend that even though Mr. Omen did in fact authorize the time, Plaintiffs using “common sense” “should have known better”.

Ms. Snyder’s Set-Up Emails and Report to Human Resources

Throughout November and December 2017, Ms. Snyder sent messages “reminding” her subordinate Rancho Cordova managers to input their PTO time even though she already suspected they were not logging time. Admittedly, Ms. Snyder was sending these general reminders to Plaintiffs even though she was specifically suspicious that Plaintiff Brantley was overlooking the entry of days for January and that Mr. Lardie requested a day in November that did not appear in the system. There was not even a mistaken basis for any suspicion as to Mr. Koos.

Not once did Ms. Snyder approach any of the Plaintiffs to discuss her specific suspicions or concerns. Not once did Ms. Snyder indicate to any Plaintiff that she was aware some PTO time was not logged into the official system. Instead, sometime in mid-November 2017, Ms. Snyder and Mr. DeBlock brought their pretextual “suspicions” to Zurich Human Resources.

Mr. DeBlock and Ms. Snyder Target Plaintiffs

On December 1, 2017, a PTO use report was run listing all Zurich Claims employees in California (not just workers’ compensation but all lines of business). From this report, another list of names was created identifying 21 WC employees in Rancho Cordova who were considered to have low PTO balances. Using this list of 21, 4 of the names were then highlighted and selected for investigation by Mr. Deblock and Ms. Snyder. These 4 names included Plaintiffs and a Team Leader named Kari Herrera.

Ms. Hererra is Eliminated from the Investigation, Leaving Only the Plaintiffs.

On or about December 6, 2017, Mr. Andrew Atkinson, Assistant Vice President of Employee Relations (HR), was assigned to investigate the PTO usage concerns of Mr. DeBlock and Ms. Snyder. In that regard, Mr. Atkinson requested “key card” a.k.a. “badge in” reports for the four employees initially highlighted by Mr. DeBlock. (This report reflects the day and time an employee uses their key card to “swipe into” the building and unlock the door. This report could show days when an employee did not use their key card at the worksite possibly inferring: 1) the employee was not at work when they should have been or, 2) the employee was at work but forgot the key card, or 3) days when the employee entered the building with another employee, or 4) days when the employee was working from home, or 5) alternative work schedule such as a 9/80 schedule (90 hours in 9 days instead of 10), or days the employee is at a different Zurich office or working elsewhere off-site.) This information was requested from January 2015 through the end of 2017.

According to Mr. Atkinson, the report for Ms. Herrera was not looked at because within two days of identifying Ms. Herrera as a concern Mr. Atkinson decided that the Ms. Herrera should be excluded from the investigation even though she used zero hours of PTO in 2016 and 2017. According to Mr. Atkinson the reason Ms. Hererra was excluded was because she stated that her low PTO was because she did not take PTO, hardly if at all. At Zurich it is very common to have managers work without taking much PTO. Inexplicably, none of the Plaintiffs were asked for any information about their PTO usage before their key card access reports were pulled. Only Ms. Hererra was excused. Ms. Herrera was not applying to replace Mr. Omen and was not regarded as one of Mr. Omen’s favorites. Because Ms. Herrera was excluded from investigation there was no exploration into how often Ms. Herrera’s key card access report showed she was not in the office when she was supposed to be working. This information was only investigated as to Plaintiffs.

According to Mr. Atkinson he was receiving direction and support for his investigation from a Vice President of Human Resources named Ms. Kristen Fisher. Although Ms. Fisher was not Mr. Atkinson’s direct supervisor, she was involved because of the investigation request from Mr. DeBlock. In addition to the key card access report, Ms. Fisher was seeking to access the login records for any remote work performed by Plaintiffs but was informed this information was only available going back 90 days. By December 11, 2017, Mr. Atkinson received the key card access reports and was waiting on the 90 days’ worth of remote login information.

On December 12, 2017, Ms. Fisher inquired of Mr. Atkinson about whether he had finished his “analysis of the card swipe vs. PTO days”. Mr. Atkinson replied the analysis was nearly done. On December 14, 2017, Mr. Atkinson emailed Ms. Fisher and Mr. Deblock to report that he reviewed three years of building entry reports for all Plaintiffs. Mr. Atkinson further advises that he received login information, but it was only for three weeks (11/21/17 to 12/12/17). At this time, Mr. Atkinson was not concerned when he compared the building access to the login information; however, he also hoped to obtain more remote work data as he was planning to meet with Plaintiffs in a few days. In the same email, Mr. Atkinson reported that Ms. Snyder was aware of the plan relative to interviewing Plaintiffs.

On December 14, 2017, in response to Mr. Atkinson’s email, Mr. DeBlock urged Mr. Atkinson to compare the building access information to the PTO report using false information that Ms. Brantley had “no badge entry for 5 consecutive days in June 2016.” Zurich’s key card access report belies Mr. DeBlock’s false assertion. In fact, the report does not reflect 5 consecutive missed days for Ms. Brantley in June 2016. This information evinces Mr. DeBlock’s zeal to falsely persecute Plaintiffs and remove them from the business. Rather than informing Mr. DeBlock about the falsity of his assertion regarding Ms. Brantley, Mr. Atkinson responded stating he had done the analysis and that he would explain why he “would like more data when we talk next.” Hours later, Mr. DeBlock again emailed Mr. Atkinson, this time to help Mr. Atkinson’s investigation by providing a spreadsheet reflecting absences entered into the PTO system by Plaintiffs – information already possessed by Mr. Atkinson. That same day, Mr. DeBlock emailed Ms. Fisher with a copy to Mr. Atkinson advising that another PTO Report would be needed on Monday December 18, 2017, as that was the day Mr. Atkinson intended to interview Plaintiffs as part of his investigation.

First Contact with Plaintiffs regarding PTO Hours by Mr. Atkinson and Ms. Snyder

On Tuesday December 19, 2017, Mr. Atkinson and Ms. Snyder conducted a telephonic interview with each Plaintiff separately. Mr. Atkinson led the discussion and Ms. Snyder was present as a witness. Both Ms. Snyder and Mr. Atkinson claim to have very little recollection of this meeting, including the date on which it occurred. Plaintiffs easily recall the date because the conversation happened the same day as the unified Christmas party held for the San Francisco and Rancho Cordova office held in Rancho Cordova. Plaintiffs were each initially informed that Zurich was investigating Plaintiffs’ use of PTO and whether such time was recorded in the system. Plaintiffs were told that Mr. Atkinson reviewed information causing him to question whether certain days Plaintiffs were not at work should have been entered into the PTO system. At this point, Plaintiffs were not told what specific dates were in question, only that there were dates where Plaintiffs appeared not to be at work and no PTO was entered in the system. Mr. Atkinson indicated he would forward an email with the specific dates in question and asked that Plaintiffs provide a response indicating where they were on the days in question. In response, each Plaintiff explained on the call that they had entered all PTO days into the system. Plaintiffs further explained that some of the dates in question would include the “Omen Days”, a benefit which Mr. Omen provided as an incentive reward outside of the official PTO system. Plaintiffs specifically indicated that this was an incentive provided to all employees and that it was not just limited to them. No notes or statements were collected from Plaintiffs to memorialize what was or was not stated at this meeting.

Immediately after the interview call when Plaintiffs realized they were being questioned as to their use of “Omen Days”, they attended the Christmas party and learned no one else from the Ranch Cordova office or San Francisco office had been questioned about PTO, only Plaintiffs.

None of the other employees in Rancho Cordova were ever interviewed about their use and/or knowledge of “Omen Days”, even though Mr. DeBlock, Ms. Snyder, and Mr. Atkinson claim that any employee who used even a single “Omen Day” should be terminated for employee theft.

Mr. Atkinson Emails Plaintiffs a List of Dates to for them to Justify

10:22 a.m.: Mr. Atkinson Emails List to Plaintiff Brantley

On December 19, 2017, at 10:22 a.m., Mr. Atkinson sent a list of dates to Plaintiff Brantley asking her to verify days she was not working and on PTO. There was no deadline or timeline as to provide a response. (Chan Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. 16.) A total of 81 dates were being questioned by Zurich.

10:48 a.m.: Mr. Atkinson Emails List to Plaintiff Koos

On December 19, 2017, at 10:48 a.m., Mr. Atkinson sent a list of dates to Plaintiff Koos asking him to verify days he was not working and on PTO for 2015-2017. There was no deadline or timeline as to provide a response. (Chan Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. 17.) A total of 71 dates were being questioned by Zurich.

11:28 a.m.: Mr. Atkinson Emails List to Plaintiff Lardie

On December 19, 2017, at 11:28 a.m., Mr. Atkinson sent a list of dates to Plaintiff Lardie asking him to verify days he was not working and on PTO for 2015-2017. There was no deadline or timeline as to provide a response. (Chan Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. 19.) A total of 28 dates were being questioned by Zurich.

Mr. Deblock Termination Decision Made Before Investigation Concluded.

12:39 p.m.: Mr. DeBlock Termination Email

On December 19, 2017, at 12:39 p.m. (PST), Mr. DeBlock emailed Mr. Atkinson, Ms. Snyder, Ms. Fisher and Mr. John Mahoney (Mr. DeBlock’s superior) that Plaintiffs would be immediately fired “given the gravity of this offense.” This email was sent before any of the Plaintiffs submitted their responses to Mr. Atkinson. Worse, although the investigation was ongoing, Mr. DeBlock falsely claims that his decision was “following the investigation” of the PTO issue. It was not “following the investigation” because Mr. Atkinson was unable to make any conclusions until after he received Plaintiffs’ explanations.

Zurich defamed Plaintiffs in this email by asserting as fact that Plaintiffs engaged in a grave “offense” that “includes, but is not limited to the following: “1. Employee theft; 2. Lack of integrity; 3. Dishonest behavior; 4. Total lack of leadership.” Mr. DeBlock instructed Ms. Snyder to execute the termination in person, and also suggested Mr. Atkinson to assist in person with the termination meeting given the need to terminate the managers in this manner. No explanation other than the “gravity of the offense” has been offered for the harsh termination of Plaintiffs within an hour of being interviewed and less than a week before Christmas. However, the “gravity” of the offense was unknown at the time of termination because the number of “Omen Days” involved was not revealed until Plaintiffs responded to Mr. Atkinson email about the days in question.

Plaintiffs Respond to Atkinson’s Investigation Email

1:12 p.m.: Plaintiff Brantley Emails Response to Mr. Atkinson

On December 19, 2017, at 1:12 p.m., Plaintiff Brantley emailed a response to Mr. Atkinson providing extensive responses about many days on which she was not on PTO or had emails showing she was working from home. Plaintiff Brantley also included other responses regarding various dates from 2015-2017 listed in the email sent from Mr. Atkinson. She did not receive a response.

In summary, of the 24 days of Defendant suspected Ms. Brantley was absent in 2017, 8 “Omen Days” were taken; of the 31 days Defendant suspected Ms. Brantely was absent in 2016, 13 “Omen Days” were taken; of the 26 days Defendant suspected Ms. Brantley was absent in 2015, 8 “Omen Days” were taken.

2:32 p.m.: Plaintiff Lardie Emails Response to Mr. Atkinson’s Investigation Email

On December 19, 2017, at 2:32 p.m., Plaintiff Lardie emailed his response to Mr. Atkinson providing his extensive responses about many days on which he was not on PTO or had emails showing he was working from home. Plaintiff Lardie also provided other responses regarding the 2015-2017 email list sent from Mr. Atkinson. He did not receive a response. (Ex. 17.)

In summary, of the 8 days Defendant suspected Mr. Lardie was absent in 2017, no “Omen Day” was taken; of the 13 days Defendant suspected Mr. was absent in 2016, only 2 “Omen Days” were taken; of the 7 days Defendant suspected was absent in 2015, only 2 “Omen Days” were taken. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff Koos Responds to Mr. Atkinson’s Investigation Email

3:45 p.m.: Plaintiff Koos Emails Response to Mr.mAtkinson’s Investigation Email

On December 19, 2017, at 3:45 p.m., Plaintiff Koos emailed his response to Mr. Atkinson providing his extensive responses about many days on which he was not on PTO or had emails showing he was working from home. Plaintiff Koos also provided other responses regarding the email list sent from Mr. Atkinson. He did not receive a response to this email.

In summary, of the 38 days Defendant suspected Mr. Koos was absent in 2017, 13 “Omen Days” were taken in 2017; of the 17 days Defendant suspected Mr. Koos was absent in 2016, 2 “Omen Days” were taken in 2016; of the 16 days Defendant suspected Mr. Koos was absent in 2015, 3 “Omen Days” were taken.

Plaintiffs’ Termination Day

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017, Ms. Snyder flew from Los Angeles to Sacramento to meet with Plaintiffs and Mr. Atkinson. Only Mr. Lardie and Mr. Koos were at work that day because Ms. Brantley typically used Wednesday as a “flex day” to work from home. Ms. Brantley was terminated over the phone.

Plaintiffs and each of them were in shock when they were informed by Ms. Snyder that their illustrious careers with Zurich were terminated because they “stole” from the company. That same day, Ms. Brantley contacted Mr. Omen by text to advise that she was terminated for using “Omen Days”.

Immediately after Plaintiffs were fired they contacted their former boss Mr. Omen to advise that they had been fired for using “Omen Days”. Immediately upon hearing this news Mr. Omen texted Ms. Snyder:

In addition to this text Mr. Omen informed Ms. Snyder that she should be “ashamed” and that she was a “heartless puppet.” After texting Ms. Snyder, Mr. Omen also texted Mr. DeBlock to report that Omen days were approved by two Vice Presidents who filled the position before Mr. DeBlock.

Neither Ms. Snyder or Mr. DeBlock reported this information to the Human Resources investigator as part of the investigation.

Defendant Zurich claimed that using “Omen days” was theft because, even though Plaintiffs were authorized to use the time by Mr. Omen and his bosses, Plaintiffs as top performing managers should have known better. Further, even though no policy at Zurich forbade “off the record” PTO, Plaintiffs’ common sense should have told them it was wrong. Notably, Zurich failed to bring any employee from Mr. Omen’s region that knew about the practice and thought it was wrong.

Within 3 months all Plaintiffs find new jobs for different Workers’s compensation insurance companies, but with much lower seniority, benefits and pay. Economic losses of $2,286,374 were awarded to Ms. Brantley. Economic losses of $609,712 were awarded to Mr. Koos. Economic losses of $456,326 were awarded to Mr. Lardie. Total economic damages for all Plaintiffs: $3,352,412.

Plaintiffs are also entitled to prejudgment interest per their CCP 998 Offer to Compromise. The total interest is approximately: $2,387,537.18.

All three Plaintiffs suffered multiple symptoms of emotional distress from the defamation including, stress, irritability, anxiety, depression and damage to their reputation having been labeled as thieves. Non-economic damages of $600,000 were awarded to Ms. Brantley. Non-economic damages of $700,000 were awarded to Mr. Lardie. Non-economic damages of $600,000 were awarded to Mr. Koos.

Total economic and non-economic damages: $5,252,412.

Additionally, the jury also awarded $25,000,000 in punitive damages to Ms. Brantley, $25,000,000 in punitive damages to Mr. Lardie and $25,000,000 in punitive damages to Mr. Koos.

The jury unanimously rejected the defense assertions finding the false statements by Zurich harmed Plaintiffs and required punitive damages.

Plaintiff’s final pre-trial demand = $2,000,000 per Plaintiff, inclusive of fees and costs

Defendant’s final pre-trial offer = $0

Outcome: Plaintiffs' verdicts:

Plaintiff 1: Melinda Brantley v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Total Verdict: $27,886,374.00

Verdict : Economic harm: $2,286,374.00
Verdict : Non-Economic harm: $300,000.00
Verdict : Reputation damage: $300,000.00
Verdict : Punitive Damages: $25,000,000.00

Plaintiff 2: Nicholas Lardie v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Total Verdict: $26,156,326

Verdict : Economic harm: $456,326.00
Verdict : Non-Economic harm: $400,000.00
Verdict : Reputation damage: $300,000.00
Verdict : Punitive Damages: $25,000,000.00

Plaintiff 3: Daniel Koos v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Total Verdict: $26,209,712

Verdict : Economic harm: $609,712.00
Verdict : Non-Economic harm: $300,000.00
Verdict : Reputation damage: $300,000.00
Verdict : Punitive Damages: $25,000,000.00

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: