San Diego Jury Awards $105 Million to Counselor Fired After Reporting Sexual Harassment
/
A San Diego jury delivered one of the largest wrongful termination verdicts in county history to a counselor who says she was fired for doing exactly what the law asks employees to do: speak up about harassment and safety failures.
Case: Michelle Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance, Inc.
Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Central Division)
Case No.: 37-2024-00002653-CU-WT-CTL
Get to Know the Plaintiff: Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance
Michelle Giaquinta worked as a counselor at Fashion Valley Comprehensive Treatment Center. She reported to management that she was being sexually harassed by a fellow counselor, whom she believed had placed a hidden camera discovered in an employee bathroom. According to trial evidence, Giaquinta had never been cited for documentation issues and had even been praised by her supervisors for her documentation skills — directly contradicting the company's stated reason for firing her.
Get to Know the Defendant: Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance
San Diego Health Alliance, Inc., doing business as Fashion Valley Comprehensive Treatment Center, is an opioid treatment facility and a subsidiary of Acadia Healthcare, Inc. The facility provides addiction treatment services to patients in the San Diego area.
What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?
Giaquinta's lawsuit alleges that her employer retaliated against her for reporting serious safety and harassment concerns. According to the case and trial evidence:
● Giaquinta reported that a coworker had sexually harassed her and may have placed a hidden camera in an employee bathroom
● The alleged harasser admitted his fingerprints would likely be found on the hidden camera
● Management failed to report the allegations to state investigators within the legally required 24-hour window, and never reported them at all
● One day after management deemed Giaquinta's complaints "unfounded," a patient ran through the facility screaming that the same counselor had sexually harassed her
● Rather than report the incident to regulators as required, the facility terminated both the alleged harasser and Giaquinta
● The company claimed Giaquinta was fired for failing to properly document a patient interaction, despite no prior documentation issues and prior praise for her documentation
What Was the Main Question in the Case?
The central question for the jury was whether Giaquinta was terminated for a legitimate performance reason, as the company claimed, or in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and a serious patient safety failure the facility never disclosed to regulators.
Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?
This is a California case decided by a California jury under California employment and retaliation law, and the size of the verdict sends a clear message to employers statewide.
● The verdict reinforces that California law protects employees who report harassment and safety violations, even when doing so is uncomfortable for the employer
● The jury's finding of malice, oppression, and fraud — resulting in a $70 million punitive damages award — shows how seriously California juries can treat retaliation against whistleblowers
● The case illustrates a common retaliation pattern: an employer manufacturing a pretextual reason for termination shortly after an employee raises safety or harassment concerns
● It's a reminder that healthcare and treatment facility employees, who are often bound by mandatory reporting laws, have strong legal protections when they follow those laws
A Brief Overview of the Case
● October 2023: Giaquinta is terminated from Fashion Valley Comprehensive Treatment Center
● January 2024: Giaquinta files suit in San Diego Superior Court
● Late April 2026: The case proceeds to trial
● May 12, 2026: The jury awards Giaquinta $35 million in compensatory damages and $70 million in punitive damages, totaling $105 million
FAQs: Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance
Q: What is retaliation under California employment law?
A: Retaliation occurs when an employer takes an adverse action, like termination, demotion, or discipline, against an employee because they engaged in a legally protected activity, such as reporting harassment or safety violations.
Q: Why did the jury award punitive damages in this case?
A: Punitive damages are awarded when a jury finds an employer's conduct involved malice, oppression, or fraud — a higher standard than ordinary negligence.
Q: What is the 24-hour reporting requirement mentioned in this case?
A: Certain licensed facilities are required to report specific allegations, such as suspected abuse, to state investigators within a defined window, often 24 hours, to protect patients and staff.
Q: Can an employer fire someone for a stated reason that isn't the real reason?
A: If an employer's stated reason for termination is pretextual — meaning it's not the actual reason — and the real motivation was retaliation for protected activity, that termination can be unlawful under California law.
Q: How large can a wrongful termination verdict be in California?
A: Verdicts vary widely by case, but California juries have shown a willingness to award substantial compensatory and punitive damages in cases involving serious retaliation and cover-ups.
Q: What should I do if I'm punished at work after reporting harassment or safety concerns?
A: Document your reports, any resulting discipline, and the timeline between them, then speak with an employment attorney about your rights.
Fired After Reporting Harassment or a Safety Concern?
Giaquinta v. San Diego Health Alliance shows how seriously California courts and juries take retaliation against employees who do the right thing. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
