You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
THE GLORIA RYAN CASE
The faithful reader will remember the case of Gloria Ryan of UCSD (see
Just Say NO to JAMS
from the Spring 1997 Newsletter and
WAGE Protests OGC's
Treatment of Ryans
from the Fall 1998 Newsletter). The Governing Council of WAGE feels that her
case is the most
flagrant example of the viciousness of the Office of the General Counsel of the
University of California
in the extent of the cruelty and relentlessness of the retaliation against
her.
Her case has become several cases.
1. She had a Worker´s Compensation case against the University
because, after
efforts to get her to leave had failed, her lab chair was sabotaged causing her
to fall and hurt
her back. This case took 6 years. Ryan´s lawyers were completely outgunned
by
UC which sent multiple lawyers to every meeting. She is trying to appeal the
decision
against her that came when her attorney failed to show but that appeal is not
likely to
succeed. The Worker´s Comp system is supposed to assure some help for
injured workers,
but it has become so difficult for a non-lawyer to understand that it has lost
much of its utility
when a large, powerful employer sets out to defeat it.
2. The second case was a suit for gender and fair employment
discrimination/wrongful termination. It went to arbitration by Judicial
Arbitration and Mediation
Service (WAGE Protests OGC's
Treatment of Ryans from the Fall 1998 Newsletter) and the outcome was one
of the reasons
WAGE recommends flatly against accepting arbitration by JAMS. The JAMS
arbitrator was
clearly against Ryan from the beginning, found against her, and awarded UC
$240,000 plus in attorney
fees. This forced the Ryans from their home and into bankruptcy. UC is now
trying to get the money
out of their daughters, who were minors at the time of the suit. This has
destroyed their lives as well.
3. The third case was a suit against a UC psychiatrist for fraud. This
psychiatrist was paid $20,000
by UC to evaluate Ryan ´s mental state for three hours. His report
shielded UC from responsibility
for her stress. This case was thrown out on summary judgment, which means that
it could not go to trial.
4. The fourth case was a suit against a therapist at UCSD who saw the
family in regard to their
daughter´s therapy and created false documents slandering Bill Ryan,
Gloria´s husband,
and their family. The Ryans sued the therapist and the UC Regents for
malpractice and invasion of privacy.
This case lost in summary judgment but on appeal won the right to sue for
malpractice. Ryan´s
previous attorney kept all the documents necessary for this case, and did not
give them to her in time to
meet the court date so the judge dismissed the case but refused to award UC any
legal fees from Ryan.
Anne Weills, who is now the Ryans´ advocate, tried to settle this case, as
well as all others, in
exchange for UC dropping its claims against the daughters. UC has refused.
Gloria´s situation is the nastiest one we know of. UC has used its might
to destroy the careers of women who complained of discrimination time and time
again.
But bringing that same might down on the heads of two young women whose only
error was
to be the children of a woman targeted for removal to save UC money
You wonder how the attorneys involved sleep at night.
-wage@wage.org-