In the United States, a Company Spanked Its Employees

The premises of the company guilty of punitive spankings on its employees, in Fresno, CA

Being far from California and not on good terms (not my fault) with the big brother from Los Angeles of the depraved Peruvian who is wreaking havoc in our community, I had to ask Grok what was happening in this security-specialized company.

Here are more details on the spanking practices at Alarm One Inc., an alarm systems company based in Anaheim (California), based on the 2006 court case involving Janet Orlando. These practices were revealed during a lawsuit for sexual harassment and assault, and they ultimately led to a financial settlement. I rely on court documents and reports for this information.

Spanking in This Company

Context of the Practices

Alarm One Inc. introduced spanking as a "motivation" technique in its Fresno office (opened in July 2003), inspired by other company offices. This was part of a "pep rally" atmosphere during morning meetings for field supervisors and salespeople, involving shouts, chants, and applause to motivate employees to sell alarm systems door-to-door. Other "crazy" activities included bonuses, singing in front of the group, getting a cream pie in the face, eating baby food, or wearing diapers. In Fresno, spanking was specifically done with an Alarm One sign or a competitor's (like Protection One). The goal was to energize the team and improve sales performance, but it was deemed an awkward and inappropriate incentive.

How Did It Happen?

• Procedure: Employees had to bend forward and receive blows on the buttocks in front of their colleagues during meetings. The spankings were administered by field supervisors, men or women, using a sign as an instrument. Employees were spanked for reasons like arriving late to a meeting or losing a sales contest.
• Atmosphere: The audience (colleagues) participated by laughing, applauding, shouting, and encouraging to hit harder. Testimonies indicate derogatory comments during women's spankings, such as "bend over, let me see that ass. Spank that bitch. Slap that ho" (bend over, let me see that ass. Spank that bitch. Slap that ho), according to witnesses like Jessica Dakin, Crystal Melendez, and Kristy Moren. No similar comments were reported for men.
• Gender Equality?: Spankings affected both men and women (most employees were between 18 and 25 years old), but men were spanked more often due to their larger number in the team. However, the court noted that this could constitute sexual harassment, even if applied to all, due to differential treatment (sexual comments for women).

Frequency and Participants

The exact frequency is not specified, but it occurred during morning meetings. Janet Orlando (aged 52, hired on October 7, 2003) was spanked "a few times" during her employment (until mid-February 2004). Other employees like Jessica Dakin (spanked three times), Crystal Melendez, and Kristy Moren were also involved. Administrators included Rob Harlan and Nina Correia, who hit Orlando with a sign. Orlando testified that she was forced to spank a male employee, but she only lightly touched him with the sign.

The Key Incident of January 14, 2004

The last reported incident involved Orlando, Dakin, Melendez, Moren, and three other people spanked during the same meeting. Dakin suffered a cut and bruise, filled out an accident report, and was taken to a doctor. Orlando claimed to have been injured (she bled) but was denied care; supervisors denied this, saying she did not report an injury. Following Dakin's complaint, meetings were held to inform that spankings were "unacceptable," and they stopped thereafter.

Legal Consequences

Orlando left the company and sued Alarm One for sexual harassment, assault, battery, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In 2006, a jury awarded her $500,000 in compensatory damages plus $1.2 million in punitive damages (total about $1.7 million). However, in 2008, the appeals court overturned the verdict due to erroneous jury instructions (comparison with violent initiations in fraternities, but the company was mixed-gender) and inconsistencies (sexual battery implied assault, but the jury had rejected that). The case ultimately settled in 2010 for $1.4 million.

Sources

• The appeal decision in PDF: https://www.employerlawreport.com/files/2013/09/Orlando-v.-Alarm-One.pdf

The Different Judicial Steps

The Appeal

Here is a detailed summary of the California Court of Appeal's decision in the Orlando v. Alarm One case in 2008, based on the official judicial opinion. This decision reversed the trial court's verdict and remanded the case for a new trial on most counts. I will structure this for clarity, including the context, initial verdict, grounds for appeal, the court's reasoning on each cause of action, the outcome, and key legal principles.

Context

Janet Orlando, aged 52, was hired by Alarm One, Inc. on October 7, 2003, as a promotions specialist (salesperson) at the Fresno office, then promoted to field supervisor. The office, opened in July 2003, mainly employed young people aged 18 to 25. Morning meetings had a "pep rally" atmosphere with shouts and chants to motivate sales. Spankings, administered with an Alarm One sign or a competitor's to punish lateness or losing sales contests, were a practice adopted from other offices. Orlando was spanked several times, the last on January 14, 2004. Another employee, Jessica Dakin, reported an injury that day, leading to the cessation of spankings. Orlando left the company in mid-February 2004 and sued Alarm One and employees (Rondell Harris, Dena Damanakis, Rob Harlan, Nina Correia) for sexual harassment, assault, battery, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Trial Court Verdict

After a jury trial, the jury ruled in favor of Orlando against Alarm One for sexual harassment and sexual battery, awarding $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. The jury rejected the counts of assault, battery, and emotional distress. The court reduced the compensatory damages by $10,000 (for lost wages) following a motion by Alarm One, but denied requests for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Grounds for Appeal

Alarm One appealed, consolidating the original and amended judgments. The arguments included errors in jury instructions, juror misconduct, and excessive damages. The appeals court focused on instructional errors and inconsistent verdicts, finding them sufficient to reverse without addressing the other points.

Appeals Court's Reasoning on Each Cause of Action

>Sexual Battery

Alarm One argued that the jury instruction (based on Civil Code § 1708.5) omitted the element of non-consent. The court noted that case law (like Angie M. v. Superior Court, 1995) requires non-consent, but Alarm One waived this objection by not requesting clarification and inviting the error (the court had proposed an instruction including consent, but the parties rejected it). Additionally, a supplemental instruction during deliberations clarified consent (including under duress) for all similar torts, curing any defect. No prejudicial error.

>Battery and Assault – Inconsistency with Sexual Battery

Alarm One highlighted the inconsistency: the jury said "no" to assault and battery by Harlan, Correia, or Harris, but "yes" to sexual battery by Harlan or Correia. The court explained that sexual battery encompasses the elements of assault (threat of contact) and battery (offensive contact), as it involves sexually offensive contact with an intimate part (like the buttocks). The facts were identical (hitting Orlando's buttocks with a sign). The special verdicts are irreconcilable under the law, instructions, and evidence; they are "against the law" and require reversal (cited: City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton, 2005; Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist., 1998). The trial court did not resolve this correctly.

>Sexual Harassment

Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Orlando alleged a hostile work environment. The elements require unwanted conduct (1) because of sex, (2) severe/pervasive altering working conditions (Lyle v. Warner Brothers, 2006; Miller v. Department of Corrections, 2005). The instruction omitted "because of sex" (disparate treatment based on gender, not just vulgarity – Oncale v. Sundowner, 1998). This allowed a verdict based on non-gender-related offensiveness. The evidence was conflicting: spankings for performance, affecting both sexes (more men), no initial complaints. Derogatory comments during women's spankings existed, but denied by some. The error was prejudicial (evidentiary conflict, attorneys' arguments, close verdict 10-2/9-3). A properly instructed jury might not find harassment "because of sex" (cited: Steiner v. Showboat, 1994; E.E.O.C. v. National Educ. Ass’n, 2005).

Outcome

The appeals court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial on assault, battery, sexual battery, and sexual harassment. The verdict favorable to Alarm One on emotional distress remains. Alarm One recovers appeal costs. (Note: the case settled in 2010 for $1.4 million outside of appeal.)

Key Legal Principles

• Waiver and Invited Error: Parties waive errors in incomplete instructions without requesting clarification; inducing error prevents appeal (Huffman v. Interstate Brands, 2004).
• Inconsistent Verdicts: Special verdicts must be consistent with the law; fatal inconsistencies lead to reversal without choosing between responses (Trujillo; City of San Diego).
• Sexual Harassment under FEHA: Requires "because of sex" (disparate treatment); a hostile environment must be severe/pervasive, evaluated in social context (Lyle; Oncale). "Egalitarian" harassment is not a defense if differentiated by gender.
• Sexual Battery: Includes non-consent; encompasses assault/battery (Civ. Code § 1708.5).
• Prejudicial Error: Reversal if the error likely misled the jury and affected the verdict (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, 1997).

The 2010 Agreement

Here is a detailed summary of the 2010 settlement in the Janet Orlando vs. Alarm One Inc. case, based on judicial and media sources. This "settlement" refers to the enforced execution of a 2006 settlement agreement that had not been honored. In 2010, a breach of contract lawsuit led to a court decision confirming Orlando's right to collect the sum, with accrued interest. I will structure the information for clarity.

General Context

Janet Orlando, a 53-year-old woman at the time of the events (aged 58 in 2010), worked for five months at Alarm One Inc., a home security systems company based in Anaheim (California), from late 2003 to mid-February 2004. She left her position after being humiliated by "team-building" practices including public spankings with a competitor's advertising sign. She sued the company for sexual harassment, assault, battery, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In April 2006, a jury awarded her $1.7 million in damages. However, in July 2006, the parties signed a settlement agreement for $1.4 million, potentially avoiding an appeal. This agreement was never paid, leading to new litigation in 2010 for breach of contract.

Details of the 2006 Settlement and 2010 Litigation

• Parties Involved:
  • Plaintiff: Janet Orlando, represented by attorneys Nicholas "Butch" Wagner and Larry Artenian.
  • Defendants: Alarm One Inc. (the employer, which went bankrupt in the meantime), Carolina Casualty Insurance (primary insurer, represented by attorney Jonathan Cole) and Monitor Liability Managers Inc. (another insurer).
  • Judge: Donald Black, at the Fresno County Superior Court (California).
• Amount:
  • Principal: 1,4 million of dollars, agreed in July 2006.
  • Accrued Interest: About 600 000 dollars at the time of the 2010 verdict, bringing the total to nearly 2 millions of dollars. Additional interest could accrue at a rate of at least 200 000 dollars per year in case of further delays (e.g., on appeal).
  • Allocation of Liability: Alarm One and Carolina Casualty are fully responsible for the 1.4 million; Monitor Liability Managers is responsible for only 200 000 dollars. Given Alarm One's bankruptcy, the insurers (mainly Carolina Casualty) should cover the majority.
• Reasons for Delays:
  • The defendants (Alarm One and its insurers) refused to pay, arguing that the 2006 agreement was conditional on obtaining bank financing, which was never secured. They claimed the contract was therefore not binding.
  • This led to a breach of contract litigation, extending the case for more than four years after the initial 2006 verdict. Orlando described this process as "retraumatization," comparing the delays to "repeated rapes" and accusing the defendants of trying to break her so she would give up. Alarm One's bankruptcy complicated enforcement, forcing Orlando to sue the insurers directly.

• Proceedings and Outcome of the 2010 Trial:
  • The breach of contract trial was held in October 2010 at the Fresno County Superior Court.
  • The jury deliberated for less than an hour before ruling in favor of Orlando on October 26 or 27, 2010 (sources vary slightly on the exact date, but it was late October).
  • Verdict: The defendants breached the 2006 agreement; Orlando is entitled to full payment plus interest. This gives Orlando leverage to force execution, although Jonathan Cole (Carolina Casualty's attorney) expressed disappointment and indicated a possible appeal, which could extend the case and increase damages.
  • Orlando's Reaction: She cried in court and stated: "You feel like they just keep raping you and raping you. It's almost like they are doing it on purpose." She praised her attorneys and expressed her desire to take a vacation once paid, notably with her aunt Sharon who supported her.

Consequences and Additional Notes

• As of the publication date of the articles (late October 2010), Orlando had still not received a penny, despite several court victories. The potential appeal by the insurers could have delayed the final payment, but no further information indicates whether that happened (available sources stop at 2010).
• This case highlights the risks for employers of humiliating "motivational" activities and the complications of dishonored settlement agreements. It was widely publicized as an example of workplace harassment.