Judge slashes $17.5 million award by jury

Verdict for salesman called excessive, cut to $4.3 million

By Richard Brooks

Sun Staff Writer

SAN BERNARDINO -- A jury went overboard in granting a salesman $17.5 million for being unjustly fired, says a judge who slashed the amount Friday to $4.355 million.

Norman Collett won the jury verdict last month, partly by arguing that Pluess-Stauffer mining corporation should be punished for being so arrogant that it refused two court orders to reveal financial information.

There is ample evidence to support the jury's decision to punish the firm, said Superior Court Judge Michael Smith. But he ruled that, legally, the $17.5 million verdict was excessive.

"Our only problem (with the judge's decision) is that he reduced it too much," said Collett's lawyer, Jonathan Biddle of Beverly Hills. "But nobody can really complain about a $4.5 million judgment."

Either side can appeal the judge's decision, and the company is apt to do just that, said attorney Malcolm Smith. "I think an appeals court would substantially reduce it further."

Collett worked for the firm's Lucerne Valley limestone mine for 3 1/2 years until he was fired in April 1983. During that time, his salary soared from $28,000 to $45,000.

He says he was fired for:

--Refusing to lie to help his company win a lawsuit.

--Protesting that a new product contained too much lead to win U.S. Food and Drug administration approval -- and for refusing to find a testing laboratory that would overlook the problem.

--Objecting to what he said was an illegal price-fixing scheme.

Company officials denied those allegations, but the jury believed them, the judge said. He added that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision.

Smith said jurors apparently based the excessive award on three factors that weren't directly related to Collett's firing:

--Sympathy: Collett's wife was dying of cancer when the company fired him and cut off his medical benefits.

--Punishment: Top company officials avoided testifying and refused to submit documents that would have helped the jury calculate a reasonable verdict.

--Personalities: At least one of the defendants came across as being distinctly "not likable."

It's too early to tell if -- or when -- Collett will collect any of Pluess-Stauffer's money.

"It just depends on how much Pleuss-Stauffer wants to spend defending the case," said the 54 year-old Salesman, who now works for Amvac Chemical Corp. in City of Commerce. "But, certainly, I'm going to hang in there."