Trial Errors Nix Dental Device Worker’s $31 Million Age Bias Win

Danaher Corp. and four related companies convinced a California appeals court to overturn a former employee’s more than $31 million jury verdict for alleged age harassment and discrimination based on the improper exclusion of evidence challenging the “me too” testimony of other older workers.

Codie Rael sued Sybron Dental Specialties Inc., KaVo Kerr Group, Kerr Corp., Ormco Corp., and Danaher under California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act. She and her two fellow materials buyers in the companies’ SybronEndo division, who were also 40 years old or older, were pushed out by the boss and replaced with younger, less expensive workers, she said.

And Sybron KaVo Kerr, Kerr Corp., and Ormco, which together manufacture and sell dental equipment and products, and their direct or indirect corporate parent Danaher, engaged in systemic discrimination against other older workers, she said.

The trial judge allowed Rael to call witnesses from outside her division to back her claims, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, said.

That “me too” evidence included testimony similar to Rael’s about facing comments on how she was too old and that supervisors favored younger workers and demeaned older employees with a goal of forcing the latter to quit, the court said.

The jury ultimately found in Rael’s favor on her age bias claims—but rejected her sex discrimination claims—and awarded her $5,282 in economic damages, roughly $3 million in noneconomic damages, $16 million in punitive damages against Sybron, and $12 million in punitive damages against KaVo Kerr, the court said.

But the trial court mistakenly barred the companies from presenting data they say showed they had actually hired the same number or more 40-or-older employees as they laid off during the years in question, Justice Dennis M. Perluss said Thursday.

That evidence was “unquestionably” relevant even it the trial judge was correct that how employees in Rael’s specific group were treated was most relevant, the appeals court said.

The lower court was also wrong that the companies couldn’t introduce the evidence through a human resources employee, Perluss said.

Any “qualified witness” with knowledge of how business records are created and maintained can lay a foundation for their submission into evidence, the judge said.

The exclusion of that evidence prejudiced the companies, necessitating a new trial, Perluss said.

Justices John L. Segal and Gail Ruderman Feuer joined the opinion.

Shegerian & Associates represents Rael. Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP represents the companies.

The case is Rael v. Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc., 2021 BL 56668, Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., No. B292599, unpublished 2/18/21.