The Columbian | Serving Clark County, Washington

The Court of Appeals on Thursday reinstated a $1.5 million award to one of four women who successfully sued Fire District 5 for sexual harassment. Meanwhile, the appellate court rejected the fire district’s request for a new trial.

A Clark County judge had reduced a $1.5 million award to $400,000 for former Fire District 5 employee Valerie Larwick after the June 2007 trial.

A seven-woman, five-man jury concluded that District 5 and its administrator, Marty James, had made crude sexual comments to four women who worked at the district’s Northwest Regional Training Center in Orchards. James stayed on after the verdict but retired last year.

In what was the largest verdict against an employer in county history, the jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of $3.53 million.

In a 3-0 ruling, the Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that there were no extenuating factors warranting such a substantial reduction, calling for the full verdict to be reinstated.

The decision now means the fire district’s insurance company is on the hook to pay $1.1 million to Larwick. The case so far hasn’t resulted in higher insurance premiums for the district.

“Basically, what the jury did is completely returned,” Thomas Boothe, the four women’s Portland attorney, said Thursday when reached by telephone.

The Court of Appeals also rejected claims made by the fire district’s appellate attorney that a comment about the district’s hefty insurance policy during trial tainted jurors.

The appellate court said “the defendant failed to support this with any briefing or legal authority,” according to its written opinion.

The court’s decision wasn’t a surprise to Mike Patterson, Seattle attorney for the fire district, but only served as a sign the case should have never gone to trial.

“We’re disappointed but not surprised,” he said. “It’s our position that this case, given the facts presented, should have been settled before trial.”

Patterson said in court papers that the fire district’s trial lawyer, Richard Matson, had underestimated the seriousness of the case and the potentially large sum for damages.

That’s why Patterson has filed a lawsuit alleging legal malpractice against Matson in Clark County Superior Court.

Matson declined comment Thursday.

Now that the sexual harassment case is resolved, attorneys are expected to begin mediation meetings on that case, Patterson said.

In October 2007, Superior Court Judge Robert Harris had reduced Larwick’s award because, he said, she had been terminated a full year before the three other women and, therefore, didn’t deserve to receive more money in damages. He also said she didn’t effectively remove herself from the labor market when she started assisting her husband with a tree farm.

Harris did let stand the jury’s awards for the other three plaintiffs: Sue Collins, $615,000; Helen Hayden, $950,000; and Kristy Mason, $465,000.

The Court of Appeals didn’t agree with the reason for the reduction, saying Larwick’s lack of employment following her termination was the result of severe emotional distress brought on by James’ harassment.

The higher court also noted that the “jury’s larger emotional damages awarded to Larwick (were) based on James’ more intensely harassing treatment of and focus on her as compared to his treatment of the other women he harassed at the training center,” the opinion stated.

Moreover, the legal standard for reducing a jury’s verdict is narrow and should only be made if the decision was “outside of range of substantial evidence or shocked the conscience,” the opinion stated. That standard wasn’t meant, the judges concluded.

Laura McVicker: 360-735-4516 or laura.mcvicker@columbian.com.

Print this article