Results

Jury Verdicts

July 2021 : Jury Verdict

After a two week in-person jury trial, fired restaurant executive is vindicated. Jury found restaurant chain CEO and HR retaliated against an eighteen year employee, with an unblemished record and a stellar history of increasing sales, six days after he reported his boss for retaliation – arising from the employee’s instruction to a female store manger to report sexual harassment to the HR dept. The jury awarded $689,000 in lost wages and the court entered a $923,000 judgment in favor of our client.
Link to Article July 30, 2021

Feb 2018 : Jury Verdict

Local funeral home chain lost a body entrusted to it for funeral services. After a three-week trial, the jury rejected the funeral home’s claim that her body had been stolen and returned a verdict in favor of our clients (parents of the deceased).
Link to Article February, 14 2018

Mar 2012 : Jury Verdict

Clients position eliminated in a reorganization three years after reprimanding a V.P. for sexual harassment. After a two-week trial, the jury found employer SAWS had retaliated. The jury awarded over $1,500,000 to our client, which was affirmed by the San Antonio court of appeals. The Texas Supreme Court, however, decided that our client could not have held a reasonable belief that she opposed sexual harassment by telling a married VP to stop asking out female employees, despite SAWS general counsel telling client to investigate the female employees’ multiple
complaints about the VP and one employee said she would file a formal sexual harassment complaint if the VP continued his conduct. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment.
Link to Article March 10, 2012

Jan 2010 : Jury Verdict

Successful defense of real estate broker sued for failure to disclose a sinkhole on an adjoining property. In a three-week trial, client was cleared of all liability and awarded his attorney’s fees of over $100,000.
Link to Opinion

May 2009 : Jury Verdict

53 year-old man held liable for initiating an inappropriate relationship with a 16 year-old girl. The jury awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $15,000 in punitive damages.
Link to Article May 13, 2009

August 2008 : Jury Verdict

A local utility found liable to a 26 year employee for gender discrimination.
Link to Article August 13, 2008

September 2007 : Settlement

Municipal water company (SAWS) suspended its internal auditor (client) after he lodged a race discrimination complaint against the CEO. After unsuccessfully seeking to dismiss the case, SAWS paid $635,000 to settle the case.
Link to Article September 5, 2007

September 2005 : Jury Verdict

A local utility found liable to its employee for sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting the harassment.
Link to Article

April 2004 : Jury Verdict

Majority shareholders looted the corporation and denied dividends to the minority shareholder (client).
Link to Article

September 2000 : Jury Verdict

Employer found liable for firing an eight-year employee after she told her supervisor she was pregnant.
Link to Article September 2, 2000

August 1999 : Jury Verdict

Hospital found liable, violating the disability discrimination statute, for firing an administrator after she suffered a minor stroke on the job.
Link to Article August 20th, 1999

March 1999 : Jury Verdict

Landlord found liable to a tenant gang-raped at an apartment complex due to inadequate security. The jury awarded $2,500,000 in damages. Prior to the start of the punitive damages phase, the case settled for $1,500,000 payable within ten days.
Link to Article March 19th, 1999

Note: These jury verdicts do not represent the amounts received by Katzman & Katzman clients. Due to the fact that the trial and appellate courts have the authority to order remittitur (reduction) of the amounts found by the jury, as well as reverse any of the findings, the amounts ultimately received by the clients may not be represented by the amounts awarded by the jury. Other factors that affect the net amount received by a client are voluntary decisions to settle while a verdict is on appeal, the defendant’s economic viability with regard to collectability of a verdict, the contingency fee, and case expenses if applicable.