RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTION

1102.5: LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY (MTA)

SPECIAL VERDICT NO. ONE

We, the jury in the above entitled action, find the following special verdict on the

following questions submitted to us:

Question No. 1:

Did plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had reasonable cause to

believe that MTA did not provide maximum opportunities to Disadvantaged Business

Enterprises in violation of 49 C.F.R. Part 23 as set forth in his regulatory/criminal

complaint filed with the Secretary of Transportation?

If you answer Question No. 1 no, sign and return and return this verdict.

If you answer yes to Question No. 1, then answer Question No. 2.

Question No. 2:

Did plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he engaged in a protected

activity under 49 C.F.R. Part 23? (Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners v. United

States Department of Labor, (3rd Cir. 1993) 992 F.2d 474, 480-481).

Answer yes or no : .

If you answer Question No. 2 no, sign and return and return this verdict.

If you answer yes to Question No. 2, then answer Question No. 3.

Question No. 3:

Did plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that MTA took an adverse action

against him? (Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners v. United States Department of

Labor, (3rd Cir. 1993) 992 F.2d 474, 480-481).

Answer yes or no : .
If you answer Question No. 3 no, sign and return and return this verdict.

If you answer yes to Question No. 3, then answer Question No. 4.

Question No. 4:

Did the evidence presented create a reasonable inference that the adverse action taken

against plaintiff was because he filed a regulatory/criminal complaint with the Secretary of

Transportation? (Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners v. United States Department of

Labor, (3rd Cir. 1993) 992 F.2d 474, 480-481).

Answer yes or no : .

If you answer Question No. 4 no, sign and return and return this verdict.

If you answer yes to Question No. 4, then answer Question No. 5.

Question No. 5:

Did MTA articulate a legitimate reason other than plaintiffs filing a complaint with the

Secretary of Transportation for the termination of plaintiff? (Passaic Valley Sewerage

Commissioners v. United States Department of Labor, (3rd Cir. 1993) 992 F.2d 474, 480-

481).

Answer yes or no : .

If you answer Question No. 5 no, sign and return and return this verdict.

If you answer yes to Question No. 5, then answer Question No. 6.

Question No. 6:

Did plaintiff establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons articulated by

MTA are a pretext for retaliation and that the adverse employment discrimination occurred

because plaintiff filed a complaint with the Secretary of Transportation in October 1997? (

Ellis v. NCNB Texas Nat. Bank, (1994) 842 F. Supp. 243, 247).

Answer yes or no : .
If you answer Question No. 6 no, sign and return and return this verdict.

If you answer yes to Question No. 6, then answer Question No. 7.

Question No. 7:

Did plaintiff establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons articulated by

MTA was not the true reason for plaintiffs termination? (Saint Mary Honor Center v.

Hicks (1993) 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2752).

Answer yes or no : .

If you answer Question No. 7 no, sign and return and return this verdict.

If you answer yes to Question No. 7, then answer Question No. 8.

Question No. 8:

Did plaintiff establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the real reason plaintiff was

terminated by MTA was because he filed a regulatory/criminal complaint with the

Secretary of Transportation? (Saint Mary Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) 113 S.Ct. 2742,

2752).

Answer yes or no : .

If you answer Question No. 8 no, sign and return and return this verdict.

If you answer yes to Question No. 8, then answer Question No. 9.

Question 8