## Facts

- Rena Weeks worked as a legal secretary in Baker & McKenzie’s Palo Alto office and was supervised by partner Martin R. Greenstein.
- Evidence showed Greenstein engaged in unwelcome sexual touching and sexually offensive comments toward Weeks, using his supervisory position to impede avoidance.
- Over multiple years and offices, several women had complained internally about Greenstein’s conduct; firm management personnel received these complaints but took little or no effective corrective action.
- Weeks used internal reporting procedures described in the employee handbook; after she complained, she was reassigned away from Greenstein.
- Weeks sued Greenstein and Baker & McKenzie under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and related theories.
- A jury awarded $50,000 compensatory damages jointly against Greenstein and the firm; $225,000 punitive damages against Greenstein; and $6.9 million punitive damages against the firm.
- The trial court reduced the firm’s punitive damages to $3.5 million and awarded $1,847,437.86 in attorney’s fees and expenses using a lodestar with a 1.7 multiplier.

## Issues

1. Whether punitive damages against an employer under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b) may be based on managing agents’ advance knowledge of an employee’s unfitness and failure to act, and whether the employer’s punitive award must be limited by the punitive award against the employee.
2. Whether attorney’s fees could be awarded under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 in a single-plaintiff harassment action seeking primarily individual relief.
3. Whether the record and stated reasons supported applying a 1.7 multiplier to a FEHA lodestar fee award.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the compensatory damages award.
- The court affirmed punitive damages against both Greenstein and Baker & McKenzie, including the reduced $3.5 million punitive award against the firm.
- The court held Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b) permits punitive damages against an employer based on the conduct specified in that subdivision and does not cap the employer’s punitive liability at the amount assessed against the employee.
- The court reversed the attorney’s fee award to the extent it relied on Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5.
- The court held FEHA authorized a reasonable fee award, but remanded because the 1.7 multiplier was not adequately supported and risked duplicating factors already included in the lodestar.

## Legal Principles

- Under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b), an employer may be liable for punitive damages when managing agents had advance knowledge of an employee’s unfitness and employed the employee with conscious disregard of others’ rights or safety, or when managing agents authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct.
- Section 3294(b) allows employer punitive liability based on the subdivision (b) criteria without an additional finding that the employer independently acted with oppression, fraud, or malice under subdivision (a).
- Section 3294(b) does not require the employer’s punitive damages to mirror or be capped by the punitive damages assessed against the offending employee.
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5 does not authorize attorney’s fees where the action is brought by a single plaintiff primarily to remedy her own economic injury, even if the case has incidental deterrent effects.
- Under FEHA, reasonable attorney’s fees are available to a prevailing plaintiff; any lodestar enhancement must be justified by specific factors not already reflected in the lodestar and supported by an adequate record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld substantial punitive damages against the law firm because firm managing agents had long-term notice of a partner’s harassment and failed to respond adequately, and it rejected any rule tying the employer’s punitive exposure to the employee’s punitive award. It also limited fee recovery by disallowing reliance on the private attorney general statute and requiring reconsideration of any FEHA lodestar multiplier.


Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie, 63 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 510 (Ct. App. 1998)