March 13, 2025 • 32 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!
A shocking email revealed General Electric executives' plan to terminate an employee regardless of his actions - a smoking gun that led a jury to award over $12 million in damages in one of the most significant workplace retaliation cases of recent years.
Hemant Modi, an accomplished electrical engineer with a PhD, found himself caught in an increasingly hostile work environment after filing a discrimination complaint alleging he was passed over for promotion due to his age and minority status. What followed was a textbook case of workplace retaliation - increased scrutiny, special rules applying only to him, performance improvement plans, and ultimately, termination.
The case takes us deep into the mechanics of workplace discrimination and retaliation, revealing how power dynamics can create impossible situations for employees who speak up. When Modi's supervisors documented his every move, criticized his work performance, and implemented new attendance requirements specifically targeting him, they created a paper trail meant to justify his eventual termination. But their own internal communications betrayed their true intentions when an email emerged showing they planned to fire Modi no matter what he did upon returning from medical leave.
The jury's verdict and the subsequent legal battle provide crucial insights for both employees and employers. For workers, Modi's case underscores the vital importance of documenting everything and understanding your legal rights. For companies, it serves as a sobering reminder that retaliatory actions can lead to devastating financial and reputational consequences. The judge's detailed analysis of what constitutes appropriate punitive damages offers a fascinating glimpse into how courts evaluate corporate misconduct and determine appropriate penalties.
What can we learn from this landmark case about creating truly fair workplaces? How can organizations build cultures where people feel safe reporting concerns without fear of retaliation? Listen now to explore these crucial questions and discover why this case matters for anyone navigating today's complex workplace dynamics.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right.
You guys sent us a fascinatingset of documents for this deep
dive Court rulings, motions,even some pieces of the trial
transcript.
This is a deep dive into aclaim of workplace
discrimination and retaliation.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
You know, what's interesting about this one is
that this case actually went allthe way to a jury trial, which
is pretty rare, and the outcomewell, let's just say the company
probably wasn't expecting it.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Yeah, the jury awarded the plaintiff, a guy
named Hemat K Modi, over $12million.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
But that's not even the whole story.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
I know right, there are so many twists and turns in
this case.
Yeah, this case is a rollercoaster.
The legal maneuvering after theverdict is.
It's almost as dramatic as thetrial itself.
Okay, so let's start at thebeginning.
Who was Hemant Modi and why washe suing the giant General
Electric?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
So Hemant Modi was an electrical engineer.
He had a PhD, very accomplished.
He started working at GEIndustrial Systems we'll call it
GEIS for short back in 1988 asa chief engineer, a senior role,
but not quite at that executiveband level which is where he
really wanted to be.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Ah, the executive band.
I'm guessing that comes with apretty hefty pay raise and a
whole lot of prestige.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Exactly, and that's kind of where the seeds of this
conflict were some.
Initially, modi received prettygood performance reviews.
His supervisor at the time,guillermo Will, even praised his
technical expertise.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
So what went wrong?
If his boss was happy with hiswork, why didn't he get promoted
?
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Well, will also mentioned some concerns about
Modi's managerial andinterpersonal skills.
In those early performanceassessments he consistently gave
him a B rating.
You know, basically average.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
OK, so maybe not stellar reviews, but decent
enough, right?
Did they ever give him a chanceto improve in those areas?
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, actually they did move him to another position
, same level though, but hisambition to reach that executive
band, well, that never reallyfaded.
Both Will and Modi's nextsupervisor, don McDonald they
acknowledged that he made hisaspirations pretty clear.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
So the desire was there, but the promotion never
came.
I can see how that might leadto some frustration.
You know feeling stuck.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Totally.
And then, in 2002, things startto heat up.
Modi started noticing youngerwhite employees being promoted
ahead of him, and he began tosuspect that maybe he was being
discriminated against because ofhis age and his background.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
That's a tough situation to be in.
Did he have any concreteevidence to back up his
suspicion?
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Well.
He pointed to specificinstances where he felt people
with less experience werepromoted over him.
He also highlighted a GE salaryguideline that, if applied
strictly, could potentiallydisadvantage more highly
compensated and often olderemployees.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Interesting.
So even if there wasn't likeoutright intentional
discrimination, the systemitself might have been working
against him.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Yeah, that's a point worth considering for sure.
Also, we know that GEISpersonnel files actually did
include information aboutemployees age and minority
status, so whether these factorswere intentionally used or not,
they were definitely part ofthe picture.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
OK, that's.
That's a bit unsettling.
So what did Modi do about it?
Did he just grin and bear it?
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Oh, he did not.
In July 2002, he wrote a memoto Tom LaValle, the GEIS human
resources manager, formallyalleging discrimination based on
age and his minority status.
He specifically referencedthose instances where he felt
less qualified candidates werepromoted ahead of him.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
That's a brave move.
Going up against a company likeGE, that's no joke.
What was their response?
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Well, lavalle responded to the memo and he
claimed that those otheremployees had different job
functions, essentiallydismissing Modi's concerns.
He denied any discriminationwas taking place.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
So they basically shut him down.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Well, not entirely.
It's important to note thatLaValle did say he'd treat the
memo as a formal disputeresolution attempt, so GE was
acknowledging the complaint,even if they weren't necessarily
taking it all that seriously.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
OK, so some process was followed, even if the
outcome wasn't what Modi hopedfor.
But here's where things getreally interesting.
Right After Modi's complaint,things at work took a bit of a
turn.
What happened?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
This is where things get messy His supervisors,
lavalle McDonald, and thegeneral manager, chris Fuselier.
They started scrutinizing hisevery move.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
What do you mean by scrutinizing?
Were they just keeping a closereye on him, or was it more than
that?
Speaker 2 (04:22):
It was definitely more than just keeping an eye on
him.
They began tracking hisattendance very closely, which
is interesting because Modiactually required daily dialysis
and sometimes had to come inlate.
He used vacation time to coverthose late arrivals, but his
supervisors started sendingemails expressing concern about
his attendance anyway.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Huh, that seems a little suspicious, especially
since he was using his allottedtime off Was there anything else
it gets worse.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
They began criticizing his work, gave him a
poor performance review inOctober and they even
implemented a new rule requiringhim to be at work no later than
8.00 am, which you know wasn'ta rule before his complaint.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Wow, so they're really turning up the heat.
Did they have any evidence thathis work had actually declined?
Or was this this all just tobuild a case against him?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
It's.
It's hard to say for sure, buton October 30th McDonald created
a written record of allegedperformance and attendance
issues for Modi's personnel file.
This was after the complaintRemember.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
OK, so they're documenting this negative
perception, even if it's notclear that his work had actually
changed.
What did Modi do in response toall of this?
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Well, he tried to transfer to another department,
but he was told he wasn'teligible because he hadn't been
in his role for two years.
Meanwhile, lavalle and McDonalddecided to put him on a
performance improvement plan, orPIP, after consulting with GE's
in-house counsel, grace Hahn.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Now, a PIP can be a legitimate tool right to help
employees improve, but in thiscontext it definitely raises
some red flags.
Was there any indication thatModi's performance actually
warranted a PIP before hisdiscrimination complaint?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
That's the question, isn't it?
The timing of the PIP comingright after his complaint
certainly makes you wonder.
This is the kind of thing ajury would later scrutinize.
It looks an awful lot likeretaliation.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Yeah, the timing is very suspect.
It's almost like they weretrying to set him up for failure
.
So what happened next in thissaga?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Well, in November, modi was denied permission to
attend the GE leadershipconference and he was asked to
compile a list of tasks tojustify his position.
The pressure was reallymounting.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
It seems like they were trying to isolate him and
undermine his position withinthe company, but was there a
specific incident thatultimately led to his
termination?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
There was In December , a younger, more junior
colleague named Heather Pugliese.
She emailed Modi asking him todrive the DOE, the Department of
Energy's submittal and fundingapproach for a technology he had
developed.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
OK, that sounds like a pretty standard task,
especially for someone withModi's experience.
Why was that a problem?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Well, Modi viewed this task, as you know, menial
and inappropriate for someone athis level.
He refused to do it and evenresponded to Pugliese with a
well, let's just say, a rathersarcastic email.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
even responded to Pugliese with a well, let's just
say a rather sarcastic email.
Ah okay, so refusing to do thisseemingly simple task, is that
what got him fired?
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Well, it set off a chain of events.
Mcdonald reprimanded him forrefusing to do the work, and
Modi countered saying that thisDOE funding request was
retaliation for his earlierdiscrimination complaints.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
So he's saying the work assignment itself was
retaliatory.
That's a bold claim.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
It is.
He then complained to LaValleagain, who, via email,
reprimanded Modi for refusing todo the work and demanded more
specifics about the allegeddiscrimination before he'd
investigate further.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
So at this point, tensions are high.
Communication has completelybroken down.
What happened next?
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Understandably stressed, Modi called in sick
for the next two days andultimately took FMLA leave for
his health issues.
And this is where things getreally juicy.
While Modi was on leave,McDonald emailed LaValle asking
about the next steps for dealingwith Modi.
And get this.
Lavalle replies nothing to dountil he comes back to work.
Then we act.
(08:04):
Per our previous discussion, Dothe work requested?
If no, suspend then terminate.
If he does the work, LOW lackof work due to business need to
reduce costs.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Hold on that email is that's huge?
They were planning to fire himregardless of what he did when
he came back.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
That's what it looks like.
It's like they were setting atrap.
And that email Well, that's thesmoking gun.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Wow, unbelievable.
So what happened when Modireturned from leave?
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Well, that's a story for part two of this deep dive,
picking up where we left off.
Modi came back to work, youknow, walked right into the trap
His supervisors, it seemed, hadset for him, and that email
exchange where they discussedfiring him.
No matter what, you know, toprove retaliation, the action
taken by the employer has to bewhat's legally called materially
(08:49):
adverse.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Can you unpack that term a bit?
What does that mean in thiscontext?
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Basically, materially adverse means the action was
significant enough to discouragea reasonable person from making
a complaint in the first place.
You know like, imagine filing adiscrimination complaint and
suddenly you're put on aperformance improvement plan or,
you know, scrutinized for everylittle thing, even worse,
threatened with termination.
It's a pretty strong message,don't you think Like, don't
(09:15):
speak up.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Oh yeah, definitely Creates this atmosphere where
people are afraid to reportanything because they're worried
about you know therepercussions.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Exactly.
It's called a chilling effect,and the judge in this case found
that GE's actions weredefinitely materially adverse,
which was a big win for Modi.
It showed the court understoodthe seriousness of what GE had
done.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
So back to.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Modi's return.
He's back at work, no ideaabout this email chain and what
happens.
On February 24th, mcdonalddidn't waste any time.
He immediately instructed Modito complete that DOE funding
task, the one Modi consideredbeneath him, and you know
McDonald was very clear thatrefusal would be considered
insubordination which could leadto disciplinary action.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
So they were really backing him into a corner,
knowing he'd likely resist.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
It really seems that way.
Modi, sensing this trap, wentstraight to Fuselier arguing the
work was retaliatory.
Fuselier's response he had todo it unless it was, quote
illegal, unethical or immoralend quote.
They even suggested he resign.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Wow.
So not only are they, you know,allegedly retaliating against
him, but then they tell him toresign.
It's like add insult to toinjury, you know.
So what did Mody do?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Mody, faced with this impossible situation, took a
half day of vacation thatafternoon and didn't return the
next day.
Mcdonald immediately suspendedhim without pay, pending further
investigation.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Would that investigation ever happen?
Speaker 2 (10:40):
It doesn't seem so.
Instead, mcdonald's in a letterstating that if Mody didn't
return to work by March 7th,he'd be terminated.
But there was an address error,so Modi didn't actually get the
letter until March 10th.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Oh no, so he was essentially fired without even
knowing about the deadline.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Exactly.
He didn't return by thedeadline, which, again, he
didn't know about.
So McDonald's sends anotherletter on April 4th officially
terminating Modi, backdated toMarch 7th, for insubordination
and job abandonment.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
It's almost unbelievable how this just seems
to keep getting worse for GE,Like not only did they seemingly
plan to fire him, but then theydidn't even give him a proper
chance to respond.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Yeah, this is where that mountain of legal documents
you sent us comes in.
You know the trial transcripts.
They're fascinating.
They really bring all of thisto life.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
I bet they do so.
The trial took place in July2006.
What was the atmosphere like?
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Tense, you know, remember.
Modi is claiming that he wasretaliated against for speaking
up about discrimination,Everything the scrutiny, the bad
reviews, the work assignment,you know, the suspension and
then the termination.
He's saying it was all becausehe filed that complaint.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
And what's GE's defense?
Are they denying any wrongdoingat all?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
They're saying that his termination was purely
because of insubordination andjob abandonment.
They're trying to to paint thispicture of him being a
difficult employee who refusedto do his job.
But remember that email fromLavelle to McDonald where
they're talking about firing himbefore he even returns from
leave.
That email became a key pieceof evidence in the trial.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Oh, I bet that's like handing the other side a loaded
gun.
So what did Modi's lawyers dowith it.
They argued very effectivelythat the email showed that GE
was looking for any excuse, anyexcuse at all, to fire Modi,
that their intent was toretaliate against him for filing
that discrimination complaint.
That's huge.
So it's up to the jury todecide who to believe.
(12:32):
What was their verdict?
Speaker 2 (12:34):
They sided with Modi.
They found in his favor on allthree of his retaliation claims
based on race, national originand age.
They didn't buy GE's story andthat email was likely a big
reason why.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
So that's a big win for Modi.
Not only did they believe him,but they sided with him on all
three counts of retaliation.
It seems like a pretty clearcut case.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
It does, but it doesn't end there.
The jury also had to decide ondamages, and this is where
things get really interesting.
There.
The jury also had to decide ondamages, and this is where
things get really interesting.
They awarded him nearly$600,000 in back pay, $500,000
in compensatory damages foremotional distress, and get this
$10 million in punitive damages$10 million, wow.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Can you explain to our listener?
You know what punitive damagesare and why they were awarded in
this case.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Punitive damages.
They're meant to punish thedefendant for really bad
behavior and, you know, deterthem and others from doing the
same thing in the future.
It's basically the court sayingso.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
in this case, the jury was saying that GE's
actions were so bad that theyneeded to be made an example of.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Yeah, exactly.
And because they found that GEintentionally violated age
discrimination laws, somethingcalled liquidated damages were
added on top of everything else.
The total judgment a staggering$12.5 million.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
So at this point Modi has been vindicated, the jury
has sided with him and he's beenawarded a massive amount of
money.
So case closed, right.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Not quite.
Ge wasn't going down without afight.
They filed what are calledpost-trial motions asking the
judge to reconsider.
They were basically arguingthat, one, the verdict was wrong
or, two, even if it wasn't, thedamages were way too high.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
So we're on to round two of this legal battle.
What were their main argumentsfor trying to get the verdict
overturned or the damagesreduced?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
They tried a few different things.
First, they claimed that Modiactually abandoned his job by
not returning to work after hissuspension.
You know they were saying that,that their demand for him to do
that DOE funding task that wasreasonable and his refusal to do
it justified his termination.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
So they were trying to shift the blame back onto
Modi, making it seem like he wasthe one who who walked away
from the job.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Exactly.
They also argue that they werejust following the advice of
their their legal counsel, GraceHahn, throughout the process.
This is a pretty common defensetactic.
It's called the advice ofcounsel defense defense tactic.
It's called the advice ofcounsel defense.
Companies often try to shieldthemselves from liability by
claiming they were just doingwhat their lawyers told them to
do.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Did they provide any specifics about the advice they
received, you know, did theyactually show that their lawyer
told them to do these things?
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Unfortunately no, the corrupt documents don't go into
detail about what specificadvice Hahn gave.
And that lack of detailactually hurt GE, because the
judge said essentially, ifyou're going to claim you were
just following your lawyer'sadvice, you need to show me what
that advice was.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
So their attempt to use the advice of counsel
defense kind of backfired.
What else did they try?
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Their third and maybe most significant argument was
that that $10 million punitivedamage award was excessive and
unconstitutional.
They were saying the jury wenttoo far and the amount was so
high it violated their rights.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
That's interesting.
I know there are rules aboutpunitive damages and when
they're appropriate.
How did the judge approach this?
Speaker 2 (15:52):
The judge used guidelines established by the
Supreme Court they're calledguideposts to evaluate whether
the punitive damages were fairand reasonable.
These guideposts help judgesfigure out, you know, is a
punitive damage awardappropriate and is it within the
limits of the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
So can you break those down for us?
I think our listener wouldreally appreciate a deeper dive
into how that works.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Sure.
The first one, and probably themost important, is the degree
of reprehensibility of thedefendant's conduct.
It's really looking at how badwere the defendant's actions.
Were they intentionallymalicious or deceitful?
Did they cause physical oreconomic harm?
The more reprehensible theconduct, the higher the punitive
damages can be.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
So, in this case, how did the judge assess the the
reprehensibility of GE's actions?
Was it a slam dunk for Modi ordid GE have some valid points?
Speaker 2 (16:45):
The judge acknowledged that GE's behavior
was pretty bad.
He pointed out that Modiendured a long campaign of
retaliation, that hissupervisors knew about his
health condition, the dialysisand that their actions
ultimately cost him hislivelihood.
So those were all big pointsagainst GE.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
It doesn't sound good for GE.
It seems like the judge wasreally taking their actions
seriously.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
He was, but it wasn't , you know, a complete loss for
GE on this one.
The judge did note that theiractions did involve physical
violence or, you know, endangera large group of people, so that
actually tempered the degree ofreprehensibility a little bit.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
OK, so so point one, kind of for Modi, but with a,
with a caveat for Gigi.
What about the second guidepost?
What did that focus on?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
The second guidepost is the disparity between the
punitive damages and the actualor potential harm to the
plaintiff.
It's basically about, you know,proportionality, making sure
the punishment fits the crime.
The court looks at the ratiobetween the punitive damages and
the compensatory damages to tofigure out if the punitive
damages are excessive.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
Is there a specific ratio, that that the courts
consider fair?
You know, like a magic number.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
There's no hard and fast rule, but the Supreme Court
has generally said that thatratios exceeding single digits
are often problematic,especially, you know, when the
compensatory damages are alreadyhigh.
They've suggested that that afour to one ratio is about the
limit of what's constitutionallyOK.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
So a four to one ratio is kind of like a yellow
light, not necessarily aviolation, but getting close to
the line.
What was the ratio in Modi'scase?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
In Modi's case, the initial ten million million
punitive damage award, comparedto the roughly $1.15 million in
compensatory damages, meaningfor back pay and emotional
distress, was nearly 9 to 1.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Wow, that's more than double what the Supreme Court
has suggested.
Did the judge agree that wastoo high?
Speaker 2 (18:34):
He did.
He ultimately decided that theratio was excessive and needed
to be adjusted.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Okay, two down, one to go.
What's the third guidepost?
That the ratio was excessiveand needed to be adjusted.
Ok, two down, one to go.
What's?
Speaker 2 (18:43):
the third guidepost that the court uses.
The third one compares thepunitive damages awarded by the
jury to civil penalties thatcould be imposed for similar
misconduct.
You know, it's basically acheck to see if the punishment
is in line with what the lawalready allows for this type of
behavior.
And this one got a bit trickyin Modi's case because, remember
, he sued under multiple laws.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Right.
He sued under Title VII, theADEA, the Connecticut Fair
Employment Practices Act andSection 1981 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1866.
Did those have differentpenalties?
Speaker 2 (19:13):
They did.
Title VII and the ADEA havecaps on damages, meaning there's
a limit to how much can beawarded.
But Section 1981 is different.
It doesn't have a cap onpunitive damages, so
theoretically the jury couldhave awarded an unlimited amount
.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
So the judge had to balance the fact that some laws
had limits, while one didn't.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yes, and in the end he determined that, even though
$10 million was a lot, it wasn'ttotally out of line, given that
there's no cap under Section1981.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
So, after considering all three of these guideposts,
what was the judge's finaldecision?
Did he hold the jury's verdict?
Speaker 2 (19:46):
He did mostly Right.
He agreed that GE hadretaliated against Modi and that
the compensatory damages forback pay and emotional distress
were justified.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
But what about the big question, the punitive
damages?
Did he keep the $10 million?
Speaker 2 (20:00):
He did not.
Based on that second guidepostthe ratio, he reduced the
punitive damages to $5 million.
He felt that this amount wasstill high enough to punish GE
and deter future misconduct.
But you know, it wasn't so highthat it would be considered
unconstitutional.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
So kind of a partial victory for both sides.
Modi still got a significantaward, but GE got the punitives
reduced.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
You could say that, but this case has one final
twist, and it's a heartbreakingone.
Sadly, after the judge made hisruling, but before the appeals
process could even start, hemeant Modi passed away.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Oh, wow, that's so sad.
After fighting so hard, hedidn't even get to see the end
of it all.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Did that have any legal impact on the case?
It did.
Ge argued that because Moby haddied, the case should be
dismissed or, the very least youknow, the damages should be
reduced even more.
But the judge disagreed.
He ruled that the award wouldnot be affected.
He said that Moby had won thecase while he was alive and the
money would go to his estate.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
That must have been some comfort to his family,
knowing that that his fightwasn't in vain.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Yeah, it was a bittersweet victory, for sure.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Okay, so this case really is a roller coaster, but
there's there's still one pieceof the puzzle we haven't talked
about yet.
Remember all those other claimsthat Modi initially made, the
ones that the judge dismissedbefore the trial.
What happened to those?
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Right.
So those claims were based onstatements that were supposedly
made by Indra Perkayasta, the GEexecutive who hired Modi.
Modi claimed that Perkayastahad made promises about, you
know, quick promotion within GEif he performed well.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
So he was basically arguing that those statements
were like a contract and GEbreached that contract when they
didn't promote him.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Exactly, he was using this legal concept called
promissory estoppel.
That's where you know a partycan recover damages if they
relied on a promise to theirdetriment, even if you know
there wasn't a formal contract.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Right.
He's essentially saying I waspromised these things, I relied
on those promises and I sufferedbecause those promises weren't
kept Right, but the judgedismissed those.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Right, he did.
He said that Prokos'sstatements were too vague to be
considered.
You know, a clear promise thatthey were more like expressions
of hope or encouragement ratherthan a legally binding
commitment.
So those claims they didn'tmake it to the trial.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
So it seems like Modi's lawyers were really
throwing everything they had atGE, trying every possible legal
argument.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Yeah, that's.
That's pretty common in thesetypes of cases.
Sometimes it's about you know,leaving no stone unturned, and
sometimes it's a strategy to putmore pressure on the defendant.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
So we've covered so much ground here.
We've seen how you know arequest for a promotion turns
into a discrimination complaint,then a lawsuit, and then you
know this whole legal battlewith millions of dollars at
stake.
What are some of the bigtakeaways here from Modi's case?
Speaker 2 (22:52):
That's a great question and one we'll discuss
after a quick break.
Stay with us.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Welcome back to the Deep Dive.
We've just journeyed throughthe many twists and turns of
Hemat Modi's legal fight againstGeneral Electric.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
It's a case that shows us how tough it can be to
stand up to your employer,especially when it's a big
corporation like GE.
It really highlights theimportance of knowing your
rights as an employee and beingaware of what can happen if you
do decide to speak up.
Yeah, and you know, being awareof what can happen if you do
decide to speak up.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
Right, Because while we have legal protections
against these things, Modi'scase shows that it's not always
easy.
It raises a lot of questionsabout what really goes on at
work behind the scenes.
You know what's not alwaysvisible.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
This isn't just about Modi and GE.
This case gives us a glimpseinto into the power dynamics
that you see in so manyworkplaces.
You know where people can feelpressured or intimidated, or or
even silenced.
Think about it Modi supervisors.
They scrutinized every littlething he did.
They documented everything.
They basically made him feellike he had no way out.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
It's a reminder that even small actions you know,
things that might seeminsignificant if they're done by
someone in a position of power,they can have a huge impact on
an employee, especially if thatemployee already feels
vulnerable.
So what can we all learn fromthis?
What are the key things peopleshould take away from all of
this, both for employees andemployers?
Speaker 2 (24:11):
For employees, I think the most important thing
is to know your rights,understand what is considered
discrimination and retaliationand you know, don't be afraid to
speak up if you thinksomething's wrong, but be
prepared, document everything.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Right, speaking up is important but, as we saw, it
can be risky.
What advice would you givesomeone who's worried about
retaliation?
How can they protect themselves?
Speaker 2 (24:32):
Document, document, document, every single thing.
Keep a record of every incident, every conversation, any email,
anything you think might bediscriminatory or retaliatory
Dates, times, names, detailswrite it all down.
It can be incredibly helpful ifyou need to make a complaint or
, you know, take legal action.
It's so much harder for acompany to argue with a clear
(24:53):
written record.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
That's really practical advice.
What about employers?
What can they do to create abetter workplace environment
where these types of situationsare less likely to happen, you
know, where people feelrespected and safe?
Speaker 2 (25:06):
It starts with communication Create a culture
where people feel comfortablespeaking up without fear of
punishment and have a clearprocess for addressing concerns,
and make sure that process iseasy to understand and easy to
use.
But it's not enough to justhave a process.
You have to actually follow itconsistently and fairly.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
So it's about walking the walk, not just talking the
talk.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Exactly, and training is key.
Make sure that managers andemployees everyone knows their
rights and responsibilities.
They understand whatdiscrimination and retaliation
are and the potentialconsequences.
You really have to create aculture where people are aware
and accountable for theiractions.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
It seems like this case is about so much more than
just legal stuff.
It's about human relationshipsand creating workplaces where
everyone feels safe andrespected.
It's about human relationshipsand creating workplaces where
everyone feels safe andrespected Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
This case shows us that even now, in the 21st
century, the fight for equalityand justice it's still going on,
and it's a fight that requiresus to be aware and committed to
creating workplaces where thesekinds of situations just don't
happen.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
So this deep dive wasn't just about one legal case
.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
It was about.
You know the complexities ofthe workplace and the importance
of making sure everyone has afair chance.
This case shows us that we allhave a role to play in creating
a more just world, and it startsthe places where we work.
You know where we spend so muchof our time.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
As we wrap up this episode, we want to leave you
with some things to think about.
What responsibilities docompanies have to make sure
their workplaces are fair andinclusive, and what can each of
us do to make sure everyone hasa chance to thrive, no matter
their age, race or background?
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Thanks for joining us on this journey.
We hope you found this deepdive helpful and that it's given
you a new perspective on thechallenges and complexities of
the workplace and the fight forjustice and equality, you know,
a fight that we're all part of.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
And until next time, keep on diving deep.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Picking up right where we left out.
You know a lot of food forthought here.
A request for a promotion turnsinto a discrimination complaint
, then a lawsuit millions ofdollars.
What are the big things weshould remember from from Modi's
case?
Speaker 1 (27:17):
I mean it's it's a lot Right, but but for me, I
think the biggest takeaway ishow important it is to
understand your rights.
As an employee Like you need toknow what discrimination and
retaliation are.
You need to know what's OK andwhat's not OK.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
And you need to know what to do if something does
happen.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
Right, and Modi's case, I mean it shows that it
can be scary to speak up evenwhen you know you're right.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
Yeah, it definitely highlights that, While there are
laws in place to protect people, it's not always easy.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Exactly, and his story you know.
It makes you think about whatgoes on behind closed doors at
so many workplaces.
You know things we don't evensee.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
This case isn't just about Modi and GE.
It's a window into what happensin a lot of places, the power
dynamics you know, where peoplecan feel pressured or even, you
know, afraid to speak up.
It's like just remember howthose supervisors zeroed in on
him, documented every littlething.
They really put him in animpossible position.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
And it's important to remember that even small
actions you know, things thatmight not seem like a big deal
on their own can have a hugeimpact, especially when it's
coming from someone in aposition of power and the
employee already feels likethey're walking on eggshells.
So what can we all learn fromthis?
What should people take away,both employees and employers?
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Okay.
For employees, the mostimportant thing is to know your
rights, understand whatdiscrimination is, what
retaliation is.
Don't be afraid to speak up ifyou think something's not right,
but be prepared and document,document everything.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Speaking up is so important but, as we saw in this
case, it can backfire.
What advice would you give tosomeone who's, you know, worried
about what might happen if theydo speak up?
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Document every single thing, every incident, every
conversation, every email,anything that could be
considered discrimination,retaliation.
Write it all down.
Keep track of dates, times,names, details.
It's your best protection ifyou ever need to file a
complaint or go to court becausea company can't easily dispute
a clear written record.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
That's really good advice.
What about employers?
What can they do?
How can they create a workplacewhere this kind of stuff
doesn't happen, where peoplefeel safe and respected?
Speaker 2 (29:18):
It starts with communication, creating an
environment where people feelcomfortable speaking up without
being afraid of being punishedor retaliated against, and
having a process for dealingwith complaints.
You know, make it easy forpeople to understand how it
works.
But just having a process isn'tenough.
You have to use it, you have toactually follow it and be
(29:40):
consistent and fair.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
So it's not just about policies, it's about how
you actually treat people right?
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Yes, it's about putting those policies into
practice.
And then training is soimportant.
Managers, employees, everybodythey need to understand what
discrimination and retaliationare, what the consequences can
be.
Create a culture whereeveryone's aware and they know
they're accountable.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
So it's not just about legal stuff.
It's about how we treat eachother.
Basic human decency right.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Exactly Modi's case.
It shows us that the fight forequality and justice is still
going on.
It takes all of us being aware,you know, being committed to
making sure that everyone has afair chance that these types of
situations they just they becomeunthinkable.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Yeah, this, this deep dive.
It's not just about this onecase, but about all the things
that need to change.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
It's.
It's about all of us doing ourpart to make things better,
starting with where we work.
You know where we spend so muchof our lives.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
As we wrap up, we just want to leave you with some
things to think about.
What can companies do to createworkplaces that are truly fair
and inclusive for everyone?
What can each of us do, youknow, as individuals, as
co-workers, as leaders, to makesure everyone has the chance to
succeed, no matter who they areor where they come from?
Speaker 2 (30:53):
We're all in this together and we hope that this
deep dive has given you some newinsights into the challenges
that we face and how we can worktogether to overcome them.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Thank you for joining us on this journey.
We'll see you next time foranother deep dive.
All right.
You guys sent us a fascinatingset of documents for this deep
dive Court rulings, motions,even some pieces of the trial
transcript.
This is a deep dive into aclaim of workplace
discrimination and retaliation.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
You know, what's interesting about this one is
that this case actually went allthe way to a jury trial, which
is pretty rare, and the outcomewell, let's just say the company
probably wasn't expecting it.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
Yeah, the jury awarded the plaintiff, a guy
named Hemat K Modi, over $12million.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
But that's not even the whole story.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
I know right, there are so many twists and turns in
this case.
Yeah, this case is a rollercoaster.
The legal maneuvering after theverdict is.
It's almost as dramatic as thetrial itself.
Okay, so let's start at thebeginning.
Who was Hemant Modi and why washe suing the giant General
Electric?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
So Hemant Modi was an electrical engineer.
He had a PhD, very accomplished.
He started working at GEIndustrial Systems we'll call it
GEIS for short back in 1988 asa chief engineer, a senior role,
but not quite at that executiveband level which is where he
really wanted to be.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Ah, the executive band.
I'm guessing that comes with apretty hefty pay raise and a
whole lot of prestige.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Exactly, and that's kind of where the seeds of this
conflict were some.
Initially, modi received prettygood performance reviews.
His supervisor at the time,guillermo Will, even praised his
technical expertise.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
So what went wrong?
If his boss was happy with hiswork, why didn't he get promoted
?
Speaker 2 (01:29):
Well, will also mentioned some concerns about
Modi's managerial andinterpersonal skills.
In those early performanceassessments he consistently gave
him a B rating.
You know, basically average.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
OK, so maybe not stellar reviews, but decent
enough, right?
Did they ever give him a chanceto improve in those areas?
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, actually they did move him to another position
, same level though, but hisambition to reach that executive
band, well, that never reallyfaded.
Both Will and Modi's nextsupervisor, don McDonald they
acknowledged that he made hisaspirations pretty clear.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
So the desire was there, but the promotion never
came.
I can see how that might leadto some frustration.
You know feeling stuck.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Totally.
And then, in 2002, things startto heat up.
Modi started noticing youngerwhite employees being promoted
ahead of him, and he began tosuspect that maybe he was being
discriminated against because ofhis age and his background.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
That's a tough situation to be in.
Did he have any concreteevidence to back up his
suspicion?
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Well.
He pointed to specificinstances where he felt people
with less experience werepromoted over him.
He also highlighted a GE salaryguideline that, if applied
strictly, could potentiallydisadvantage more highly
compensated and often olderemployees.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Interesting.
So even if there wasn't likeoutright intentional
discrimination, the systemitself might have been working
against him.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Yeah, that's a point worth considering for sure.
Also, we know that GEISpersonnel files actually did
include information aboutemployees age and minority
status, so whether these factorswere intentionally used or not,
they were definitely part ofthe picture.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
OK, that's.
That's a bit unsettling.
So what did Modi do about it?
Did he just grin and bear it?
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Oh, he did not.
In July 2002, he wrote a memoto Tom LaValle, the GEIS human
resources manager, formallyalleging discrimination based on
age and his minority status.
He specifically referencedthose instances where he felt
less qualified candidates werepromoted ahead of him.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
That's a brave move.
Going up against a company likeGE, that's no joke.
What was their response?
Speaker 2 (03:34):
Well, lavalle responded to the memo and he
claimed that those otheremployees had different job
functions, essentiallydismissing Modi's concerns.
He denied any discriminationwas taking place.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
So they basically shut him down.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
Well, not entirely.
It's important to note thatLaValle did say he'd treat the
memo as a formal disputeresolution attempt, so GE was
acknowledging the complaint,even if they weren't necessarily
taking it all that seriously.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
OK, so some process was followed, even if the
outcome wasn't what Modi hopedfor.
But here's where things getreally interesting.
Right After Modi's complaint,things at work took a bit of a
turn.
What happened?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
This is where things get messy His supervisors,
lavalle McDonald, and thegeneral manager, chris Fuselier.
They started scrutinizing hisevery move.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
What do you mean by scrutinizing?
Were they just keeping a closereye on him, or was it more than
that?
Speaker 2 (04:22):
It was definitely more than just keeping an eye on
him.
They began tracking hisattendance very closely, which
is interesting because Modiactually required daily dialysis
and sometimes had to come inlate.
He used vacation time to coverthose late arrivals, but his
supervisors started sendingemails expressing concern about
his attendance anyway.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
Huh, that seems a little suspicious, especially
since he was using his allottedtime off Was there anything else
it gets worse.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
They began criticizing his work, gave him a
poor performance review inOctober and they even
implemented a new rule requiringhim to be at work no later than
8.00 am, which you know wasn'ta rule before his complaint.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Wow, so they're really turning up the heat.
Did they have any evidence thathis work had actually declined?
Or was this this all just tobuild a case against him?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
It's.
It's hard to say for sure, buton October 30th McDonald created
a written record of allegedperformance and attendance
issues for Modi's personnel file.
This was after the complaintRemember.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
OK, so they're documenting this negative
perception, even if it's notclear that his work had actually
changed.
What did Modi do in response toall of this?
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Well, he tried to transfer to another department,
but he was told he wasn'teligible because he hadn't been
in his role for two years.
Meanwhile, lavalle and McDonalddecided to put him on a
performance improvement plan, orPIP, after consulting with GE's
in-house counsel, grace Hahn.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Now, a PIP can be a legitimate tool right to help
employees improve, but in thiscontext it definitely raises
some red flags.
Was there any indication thatModi's performance actually
warranted a PIP before hisdiscrimination complaint?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
That's the question, isn't it?
The timing of the PIP comingright after his complaint
certainly makes you wonder.
This is the kind of thing ajury would later scrutinize.
It looks an awful lot likeretaliation.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
Yeah, the timing is very suspect.
It's almost like they weretrying to set him up for failure
.
So what happened next in thissaga?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Well, in November, modi was denied permission to
attend the GE leadershipconference and he was asked to
compile a list of tasks tojustify his position.
The pressure was reallymounting.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
It seems like they were trying to isolate him and
undermine his position withinthe company, but was there a
specific incident thatultimately led to his
termination?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
There was In December , a younger, more junior
colleague named Heather Pugliese.
She emailed Modi asking him todrive the DOE, the Department of
Energy's submittal and fundingapproach for a technology he had
developed.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
OK, that sounds like a pretty standard task,
especially for someone withModi's experience.
Why was that a problem?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Well, Modi viewed this task, as you know, menial
and inappropriate for someone athis level.
He refused to do it and evenresponded to Pugliese with a
well, let's just say, a rathersarcastic email.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
even responded to Pugliese with a well, let's just
say a rather sarcastic email.
Ah okay, so refusing to do thisseemingly simple task, is that
what got him fired?
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Well, it set off a chain of events.
Mcdonald reprimanded him forrefusing to do the work, and
Modi countered saying that thisDOE funding request was
retaliation for his earlierdiscrimination complaints.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
So he's saying the work assignment itself was
retaliatory.
That's a bold claim.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
It is.
He then complained to LaValleagain, who, via email,
reprimanded Modi for refusing todo the work and demanded more
specifics about the allegeddiscrimination before he'd
investigate further.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
So at this point, tensions are high.
Communication has completelybroken down.
What happened next?
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Understandably stressed, Modi called in sick
for the next two days andultimately took FMLA leave for
his health issues.
And this is where things getreally juicy.
While Modi was on leave,McDonald emailed LaValle asking
about the next steps for dealingwith Modi.
And get this.
Lavalle replies nothing to dountil he comes back to work.
Then we act.
(08:04):
Per our previous discussion, Dothe work requested?
If no, suspend then terminate.
If he does the work, LOW lackof work due to business need to
reduce costs.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Hold on that email is that's huge?
They were planning to fire himregardless of what he did when
he came back.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
That's what it looks like.
It's like they were setting atrap.
And that email Well, that's thesmoking gun.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Wow, unbelievable.
So what happened when Modireturned from leave?
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Well, that's a story for part two of this deep dive,
picking up where we left off.
Modi came back to work, youknow, walked right into the trap
His supervisors, it seemed, hadset for him, and that email
exchange where they discussedfiring him.
No matter what, you know, toprove retaliation, the action
taken by the employer has to bewhat's legally called materially
(08:49):
adverse.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Can you unpack that term a bit?
What does that mean in thiscontext?
Speaker 2 (08:53):
Basically, materially adverse means the action was
significant enough to discouragea reasonable person from making
a complaint in the first place.
You know like, imagine filing adiscrimination complaint and
suddenly you're put on aperformance improvement plan or,
you know, scrutinized for everylittle thing, even worse,
threatened with termination.
It's a pretty strong message,don't you think Like, don't
(09:15):
speak up.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Oh yeah, definitely Creates this atmosphere where
people are afraid to reportanything because they're worried
about you know therepercussions.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Exactly.
It's called a chilling effect,and the judge in this case found
that GE's actions weredefinitely materially adverse,
which was a big win for Modi.
It showed the court understoodthe seriousness of what GE had
done.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
So back to.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Modi's return.
He's back at work, no ideaabout this email chain and what
happens.
On February 24th, mcdonalddidn't waste any time.
He immediately instructed Modito complete that DOE funding
task, the one Modi consideredbeneath him, and you know
McDonald was very clear thatrefusal would be considered
insubordination which could leadto disciplinary action.
Speaker 1 (09:59):
So they were really backing him into a corner,
knowing he'd likely resist.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
It really seems that way.
Modi, sensing this trap, wentstraight to Fuselier arguing the
work was retaliatory.
Fuselier's response he had todo it unless it was, quote
illegal, unethical or immoralend quote.
They even suggested he resign.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
Wow.
So not only are they, you know,allegedly retaliating against
him, but then they tell him toresign.
It's like add insult to toinjury, you know.
So what did Mody do?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Mody, faced with this impossible situation, took a
half day of vacation thatafternoon and didn't return the
next day.
Mcdonald immediately suspendedhim without pay, pending further
investigation.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Would that investigation ever happen?
Speaker 2 (10:40):
It doesn't seem so.
Instead, mcdonald's in a letterstating that if Mody didn't
return to work by March 7th,he'd be terminated.
But there was an address error,so Modi didn't actually get the
letter until March 10th.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Oh no, so he was essentially fired without even
knowing about the deadline.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Exactly.
He didn't return by thedeadline, which, again, he
didn't know about.
So McDonald's sends anotherletter on April 4th officially
terminating Modi, backdated toMarch 7th, for insubordination
and job abandonment.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
It's almost unbelievable how this just seems
to keep getting worse for GE,Like not only did they seemingly
plan to fire him, but then theydidn't even give him a proper
chance to respond.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Yeah, this is where that mountain of legal documents
you sent us comes in.
You know the trial transcripts.
They're fascinating.
They really bring all of thisto life.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
I bet they do so.
The trial took place in July2006.
What was the atmosphere like?
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Tense, you know, remember.
Modi is claiming that he wasretaliated against for speaking
up about discrimination,Everything the scrutiny, the bad
reviews, the work assignment,you know, the suspension and
then the termination.
He's saying it was all becausehe filed that complaint.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
And what's GE's defense?
Are they denying any wrongdoingat all?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
They're saying that his termination was purely
because of insubordination andjob abandonment.
They're trying to to paint thispicture of him being a
difficult employee who refusedto do his job.
But remember that email fromLavelle to McDonald where
they're talking about firing himbefore he even returns from
leave.
That email became a key pieceof evidence in the trial.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Oh, I bet that's like handing the other side a loaded
gun.
So what did Modi's lawyers dowith it.
They argued very effectivelythat the email showed that GE
was looking for any excuse, anyexcuse at all, to fire Modi,
that their intent was toretaliate against him for filing
that discrimination complaint.
That's huge.
So it's up to the jury todecide who to believe.
(12:32):
What was their verdict?
Speaker 2 (12:34):
They sided with Modi.
They found in his favor on allthree of his retaliation claims
based on race, national originand age.
They didn't buy GE's story andthat email was likely a big
reason why.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
So that's a big win for Modi.
Not only did they believe him,but they sided with him on all
three counts of retaliation.
It seems like a pretty clearcut case.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
It does, but it doesn't end there.
The jury also had to decide ondamages, and this is where
things get really interesting.
There.
The jury also had to decide ondamages, and this is where
things get really interesting.
They awarded him nearly$600,000 in back pay, $500,000
in compensatory damages foremotional distress, and get this
$10 million in punitive damages$10 million, wow.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Can you explain to our listener?
You know what punitive damagesare and why they were awarded in
this case.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Punitive damages.
They're meant to punish thedefendant for really bad
behavior and, you know, deterthem and others from doing the
same thing in the future.
It's basically the court sayingso.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
in this case, the jury was saying that GE's
actions were so bad that theyneeded to be made an example of.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Yeah, exactly.
And because they found that GEintentionally violated age
discrimination laws, somethingcalled liquidated damages were
added on top of everything else.
The total judgment a staggering$12.5 million.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
So at this point Modi has been vindicated, the jury
has sided with him and he's beenawarded a massive amount of
money.
So case closed, right.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Not quite.
Ge wasn't going down without afight.
They filed what are calledpost-trial motions asking the
judge to reconsider.
They were basically arguingthat, one, the verdict was wrong
or, two, even if it wasn't, thedamages were way too high.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
So we're on to round two of this legal battle.
What were their main argumentsfor trying to get the verdict
overturned or the damagesreduced?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
They tried a few different things.
First, they claimed that Modiactually abandoned his job by
not returning to work after hissuspension.
You know they were saying that,that their demand for him to do
that DOE funding task that wasreasonable and his refusal to do
it justified his termination.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
So they were trying to shift the blame back onto
Modi, making it seem like he wasthe one who who walked away
from the job.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Exactly.
They also argue that they werejust following the advice of
their their legal counsel, GraceHahn, throughout the process.
This is a pretty common defensetactic.
It's called the advice ofcounsel defense defense tactic.
It's called the advice ofcounsel defense.
Companies often try to shieldthemselves from liability by
claiming they were just doingwhat their lawyers told them to
do.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Did they provide any specifics about the advice they
received, you know, did theyactually show that their lawyer
told them to do these things?
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Unfortunately no, the corrupt documents don't go into
detail about what specificadvice Hahn gave.
And that lack of detailactually hurt GE, because the
judge said essentially, ifyou're going to claim you were
just following your lawyer'sadvice, you need to show me what
that advice was.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
So their attempt to use the advice of counsel
defense kind of backfired.
What else did they try?
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Their third and maybe most significant argument was
that that $10 million punitivedamage award was excessive and
unconstitutional.
They were saying the jury wenttoo far and the amount was so
high it violated their rights.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
That's interesting.
I know there are rules aboutpunitive damages and when
they're appropriate.
How did the judge approach this?
Speaker 2 (15:52):
The judge used guidelines established by the
Supreme Court they're calledguideposts to evaluate whether
the punitive damages were fairand reasonable.
These guideposts help judgesfigure out, you know, is a
punitive damage awardappropriate and is it within the
limits of the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
So can you break those down for us?
I think our listener wouldreally appreciate a deeper dive
into how that works.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
Sure.
The first one, and probably themost important, is the degree
of reprehensibility of thedefendant's conduct.
It's really looking at how badwere the defendant's actions.
Were they intentionallymalicious or deceitful?
Did they cause physical oreconomic harm?
The more reprehensible theconduct, the higher the punitive
damages can be.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
So, in this case, how did the judge assess the the
reprehensibility of GE's actions?
Was it a slam dunk for Modi ordid GE have some valid points?
Speaker 2 (16:45):
The judge acknowledged that GE's behavior
was pretty bad.
He pointed out that Modiendured a long campaign of
retaliation, that hissupervisors knew about his
health condition, the dialysisand that their actions
ultimately cost him hislivelihood.
So those were all big pointsagainst GE.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
It doesn't sound good for GE.
It seems like the judge wasreally taking their actions
seriously.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
He was, but it wasn't , you know, a complete loss for
GE on this one.
The judge did note that theiractions did involve physical
violence or, you know, endangera large group of people, so that
actually tempered the degree ofreprehensibility a little bit.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
OK, so so point one, kind of for Modi, but with a,
with a caveat for Gigi.
What about the second guidepost?
What did that focus on?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
The second guidepost is the disparity between the
punitive damages and the actualor potential harm to the
plaintiff.
It's basically about, you know,proportionality, making sure
the punishment fits the crime.
The court looks at the ratiobetween the punitive damages and
the compensatory damages to tofigure out if the punitive
damages are excessive.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
Is there a specific ratio, that that the courts
consider fair?
You know, like a magic number.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
There's no hard and fast rule, but the Supreme Court
has generally said that thatratios exceeding single digits
are often problematic,especially, you know, when the
compensatory damages are alreadyhigh.
They've suggested that that afour to one ratio is about the
limit of what's constitutionallyOK.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
So a four to one ratio is kind of like a yellow
light, not necessarily aviolation, but getting close to
the line.
What was the ratio in Modi'scase?
Speaker 2 (18:17):
In Modi's case, the initial ten million million
punitive damage award, comparedto the roughly $1.15 million in
compensatory damages, meaningfor back pay and emotional
distress, was nearly 9 to 1.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Wow, that's more than double what the Supreme Court
has suggested.
Did the judge agree that wastoo high?
Speaker 2 (18:34):
He did.
He ultimately decided that theratio was excessive and needed
to be adjusted.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Okay, two down, one to go.
What's the third guidepost?
That the ratio was excessiveand needed to be adjusted.
Ok, two down, one to go.
What's?
Speaker 2 (18:43):
the third guidepost that the court uses.
The third one compares thepunitive damages awarded by the
jury to civil penalties thatcould be imposed for similar
misconduct.
You know, it's basically acheck to see if the punishment
is in line with what the lawalready allows for this type of
behavior.
And this one got a bit trickyin Modi's case because, remember
, he sued under multiple laws.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Right.
He sued under Title VII, theADEA, the Connecticut Fair
Employment Practices Act andSection 1981 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1866.
Did those have differentpenalties?
Speaker 2 (19:13):
They did.
Title VII and the ADEA havecaps on damages, meaning there's
a limit to how much can beawarded.
But Section 1981 is different.
It doesn't have a cap onpunitive damages, so
theoretically the jury couldhave awarded an unlimited amount
.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
So the judge had to balance the fact that some laws
had limits, while one didn't.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yes, and in the end he determined that, even though
$10 million was a lot, it wasn'ttotally out of line, given that
there's no cap under Section1981.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
So, after considering all three of these guideposts,
what was the judge's finaldecision?
Did he hold the jury's verdict?
Speaker 2 (19:46):
He did mostly Right.
He agreed that GE hadretaliated against Modi and that
the compensatory damages forback pay and emotional distress
were justified.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
But what about the big question, the punitive
damages?
Did he keep the $10 million?
Speaker 2 (20:00):
He did not.
Based on that second guidepostthe ratio, he reduced the
punitive damages to $5 million.
He felt that this amount wasstill high enough to punish GE
and deter future misconduct.
But you know, it wasn't so highthat it would be considered
unconstitutional.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
So kind of a partial victory for both sides.
Modi still got a significantaward, but GE got the punitives
reduced.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
You could say that, but this case has one final
twist, and it's a heartbreakingone.
Sadly, after the judge made hisruling, but before the appeals
process could even start, hemeant Modi passed away.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Oh, wow, that's so sad.
After fighting so hard, hedidn't even get to see the end
of it all.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Did that have any legal impact on the case?
It did.
Ge argued that because Moby haddied, the case should be
dismissed or, the very least youknow, the damages should be
reduced even more.
But the judge disagreed.
He ruled that the award wouldnot be affected.
He said that Moby had won thecase while he was alive and the
money would go to his estate.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
That must have been some comfort to his family,
knowing that that his fightwasn't in vain.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Yeah, it was a bittersweet victory, for sure.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Okay, so this case really is a roller coaster, but
there's there's still one pieceof the puzzle we haven't talked
about yet.
Remember all those other claimsthat Modi initially made, the
ones that the judge dismissedbefore the trial.
What happened to those?
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Right.
So those claims were based onstatements that were supposedly
made by Indra Perkayasta, the GEexecutive who hired Modi.
Modi claimed that Perkayastahad made promises about, you
know, quick promotion within GEif he performed well.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
So he was basically arguing that those statements
were like a contract and GEbreached that contract when they
didn't promote him.
Speaker 2 (21:43):
Exactly, he was using this legal concept called
promissory estoppel.
That's where you know a partycan recover damages if they
relied on a promise to theirdetriment, even if you know
there wasn't a formal contract.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Right.
He's essentially saying I waspromised these things, I relied
on those promises and I sufferedbecause those promises weren't
kept Right, but the judgedismissed those.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Right, he did.
He said that Prokos'sstatements were too vague to be
considered.
You know, a clear promise thatthey were more like expressions
of hope or encouragement ratherthan a legally binding
commitment.
So those claims they didn'tmake it to the trial.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
So it seems like Modi's lawyers were really
throwing everything they had atGE, trying every possible legal
argument.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
Yeah, that's.
That's pretty common in thesetypes of cases.
Sometimes it's about you know,leaving no stone unturned, and
sometimes it's a strategy to putmore pressure on the defendant.
Speaker 1 (22:37):
So we've covered so much ground here.
We've seen how you know arequest for a promotion turns
into a discrimination complaint,then a lawsuit, and then you
know this whole legal battlewith millions of dollars at
stake.
What are some of the bigtakeaways here from Modi's case?
Speaker 2 (22:52):
That's a great question and one we'll discuss
after a quick break.
Stay with us.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Welcome back to the Deep Dive.
We've just journeyed throughthe many twists and turns of
Hemat Modi's legal fight againstGeneral Electric.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
It's a case that shows us how tough it can be to
stand up to your employer,especially when it's a big
corporation like GE.
It really highlights theimportance of knowing your
rights as an employee and beingaware of what can happen if you
do decide to speak up.
Yeah, and you know, being awareof what can happen if you do
decide to speak up.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
Right, Because while we have legal protections
against these things, Modi'scase shows that it's not always
easy.
It raises a lot of questionsabout what really goes on at
work behind the scenes.
You know what's not alwaysvisible.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
This isn't just about Modi and GE.
This case gives us a glimpseinto into the power dynamics
that you see in so manyworkplaces.
You know where people can feelpressured or intimidated, or or
even silenced.
Think about it Modi supervisors.
They scrutinized every littlething he did.
They documented everything.
They basically made him feellike he had no way out.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
It's a reminder that even small actions you know,
things that might seeminsignificant if they're done by
someone in a position of power,they can have a huge impact on
an employee, especially if thatemployee already feels
vulnerable.
So what can we all learn fromthis?
What are the key things peopleshould take away from all of
this, both for employees andemployers?
Speaker 2 (24:11):
For employees, I think the most important thing
is to know your rights,understand what is considered
discrimination and retaliationand you know, don't be afraid to
speak up if you thinksomething's wrong, but be
prepared, document everything.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Right, speaking up is important but, as we saw, it
can be risky.
What advice would you givesomeone who's worried about
retaliation?
How can they protect themselves?
Speaker 2 (24:32):
Document, document, document, every single thing.
Keep a record of every incident, every conversation, any email,
anything you think might bediscriminatory or retaliatory
Dates, times, names, detailswrite it all down.
It can be incredibly helpful ifyou need to make a complaint or
, you know, take legal action.
It's so much harder for acompany to argue with a clear
(24:53):
written record.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
That's really practical advice.
What about employers?
What can they do to create abetter workplace environment
where these types of situationsare less likely to happen, you
know, where people feelrespected and safe?
Speaker 2 (25:06):
It starts with communication Create a culture
where people feel comfortablespeaking up without fear of
punishment and have a clearprocess for addressing concerns,
and make sure that process iseasy to understand and easy to
use.
But it's not enough to justhave a process.
You have to actually follow itconsistently and fairly.
Speaker 1 (25:23):
So it's about walking the walk, not just talking the
talk.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Exactly, and training is key.
Make sure that managers andemployees everyone knows their
rights and responsibilities.
They understand whatdiscrimination and retaliation
are and the potentialconsequences.
You really have to create aculture where people are aware
and accountable for theiractions.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
It seems like this case is about so much more than
just legal stuff.
It's about human relationshipsand creating workplaces where
everyone feels safe andrespected.
It's about human relationshipsand creating workplaces where
everyone feels safe andrespected Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (25:53):
This case shows us that even now, in the 21st
century, the fight for equalityand justice it's still going on,
and it's a fight that requiresus to be aware and committed to
creating workplaces where thesekinds of situations just don't
happen.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
So this deep dive wasn't just about one legal case
.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
It was about.
You know the complexities ofthe workplace and the importance
of making sure everyone has afair chance.
This case shows us that we allhave a role to play in creating
a more just world, and it startsthe places where we work.
You know where we spend so muchof our time.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
As we wrap up this episode, we want to leave you
with some things to think about.
What responsibilities docompanies have to make sure
their workplaces are fair andinclusive, and what can each of
us do to make sure everyone hasa chance to thrive, no matter
their age, race or background?
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Thanks for joining us on this journey.
We hope you found this deepdive helpful and that it's given
you a new perspective on thechallenges and complexities of
the workplace and the fight forjustice and equality, you know,
a fight that we're all part of.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
And until next time, keep on diving deep.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Picking up right where we left out.
You know a lot of food forthought here.
A request for a promotion turnsinto a discrimination complaint
, then a lawsuit millions ofdollars.
What are the big things weshould remember from from Modi's
case?
Speaker 1 (27:17):
I mean it's it's a lot Right, but but for me, I
think the biggest takeaway ishow important it is to
understand your rights.
As an employee Like you need toknow what discrimination and
retaliation are.
You need to know what's OK andwhat's not OK.
Speaker 2 (27:24):
And you need to know what to do if something does
happen.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
Right, and Modi's case, I mean it shows that it
can be scary to speak up evenwhen you know you're right.
Speaker 2 (27:32):
Yeah, it definitely highlights that, While there are
laws in place to protect people, it's not always easy.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Exactly, and his story you know.
It makes you think about whatgoes on behind closed doors at
so many workplaces.
You know things we don't evensee.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
This case isn't just about Modi and GE.
It's a window into what happensin a lot of places, the power
dynamics you know, where peoplecan feel pressured or even, you
know, afraid to speak up.
It's like just remember howthose supervisors zeroed in on
him, documented every littlething.
They really put him in animpossible position.
Speaker 1 (28:06):
And it's important to remember that even small
actions you know, things thatmight not seem like a big deal
on their own can have a hugeimpact, especially when it's
coming from someone in aposition of power and the
employee already feels likethey're walking on eggshells.
So what can we all learn fromthis?
What should people take away,both employees and employers?
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Okay.
For employees, the mostimportant thing is to know your
rights, understand whatdiscrimination is, what
retaliation is.
Don't be afraid to speak up ifyou think something's not right,
but be prepared and document,document everything.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Speaking up is so important but, as we saw in this
case, it can backfire.
What advice would you give tosomeone who's, you know, worried
about what might happen if theydo speak up?
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Document every single thing, every incident, every
conversation, every email,anything that could be
considered discrimination,retaliation.
Write it all down.
Keep track of dates, times,names, details.
It's your best protection ifyou ever need to file a
complaint or go to court becausea company can't easily dispute
a clear written record.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
That's really good advice.
What about employers?
What can they do?
How can they create a workplacewhere this kind of stuff
doesn't happen, where peoplefeel safe and respected?
Speaker 2 (29:18):
It starts with communication, creating an
environment where people feelcomfortable speaking up without
being afraid of being punishedor retaliated against, and
having a process for dealingwith complaints.
You know, make it easy forpeople to understand how it
works.
But just having a process isn'tenough.
You have to use it, you have toactually follow it and be
(29:40):
consistent and fair.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
So it's not just about policies, it's about how
you actually treat people right?
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Yes, it's about putting those policies into
practice.
And then training is soimportant.
Managers, employees, everybodythey need to understand what
discrimination and retaliationare, what the consequences can
be.
Create a culture whereeveryone's aware and they know
they're accountable.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
So it's not just about legal stuff.
It's about how we treat eachother.
Basic human decency right.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Exactly Modi's case.
It shows us that the fight forequality and justice is still
going on.
It takes all of us being aware,you know, being committed to
making sure that everyone has afair chance that these types of
situations they just they becomeunthinkable.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Yeah, this, this deep dive.
It's not just about this onecase, but about all the things
that need to change.
Speaker 2 (30:25):
It's.
It's about all of us doing ourpart to make things better,
starting with where we work.
You know where we spend so muchof our lives.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
As we wrap up, we just want to leave you with some
things to think about.
What can companies do to createworkplaces that are truly fair
and inclusive for everyone?
What can each of us do, youknow, as individuals, as
co-workers, as leaders, to makesure everyone has the chance to
succeed, no matter who they areor where they come from?
Speaker 2 (30:53):
We're all in this together and we hope that this
deep dive has given you some newinsights into the challenges
that we face and how we can worktogether to overcome them.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Thank you for joining us on this journey.
We'll see you next time foranother deep dive.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!