SITUATION:
After receiving his bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College at age 21, plaintiff interviewed for a position as a Financial Analyst for a large international securities firm in New York. Unlike most securities firms, entry level positions did not require a master’s degree. Promotion and salary increases were based solely on performance.

In 1988, plaintiff began work as a Financial Analyst, earning $32,000 per year. For several years, he developed a specialty in creating funding models for municipal bond issuers.

He was transferred to the Los Angeles branch of the firm at age 25 and was shortly promoted to Vice President of Public Finance. During this tenure, he directed bond offerings which included a $250 million offering for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and over $800 million in offerings for the Southern California Public Power Authority.

After six years with the firm, plaintiff was earning $250,000 per year, representing more than a 750% increase in compensation since his hire date. Performance reviews characterized him as a “rising star” within the organization.

Plaintiff suffered harassment from a senior executive at the firm. Initially, attention included daily invitations for lunch or dinner. However, the personal nature of the overtures escalated to inappropriate touching, love letters, numerous phone calls at home, even letters to plaintiff’s parents, expressing the executive’s feelings for their son. Plaintiff made many attempts to resolve this untenable situation without the firm’s assistance. However, the executive’s obsessive behavior increased, culminating in a suicide threat. Plaintiff informed his superior about the harassment but because the harasser was a top performer, the firm did not terminate the harasser or take effective steps to stop the harassment. Finally, when plaintiff learned that the firm had known all along about similar harassment by the same executive toward another male but had taken no steps to prevent the harassment from being repeated against plaintiff, he had no other recourse but to resign. He sought psychological counseling and was subsequently diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, and was prescribed anti-depressant medications.

Andersen determined that the plaintiff had lost significant career momentum. He based his opinion on the vocational interview, vocational testing, psychological reports and detailed research into the securities industry in general and the plaintiff’s job and firm in particular. Andersen found that plaintiff had been in a unique situation in the securities industry. Most securities firms require a master’s degree to be hired and advance in the company. However, plaintiff’s firm only required a bachelor’s degree, so his promotion was strictly based on merit. Andersen stated that plaintiff would now require an MBA from a top school (e.g., Harvard, Wharton School of Business, or UCLA) to reenter the labor market in another field. Even with the advanced degree, plaintiff would require three to five years additional work experience to resume his pre-incident earning capacity.


ABOUT RICHARD ANDERSEN:
Richard Andersen holds national certifications as a Rehabilitation Counselor, Vocational Evaluator and Disability Management Specialist, with 35 years experience in vocational rehabilitation. He has also testified in Superior Court in 10 California counties. VECTOR, Inc. specializes in vocational rehabilitation counseling, disability research and forensic rehabilitation services, including vocational expert testimony on personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death, and harassment matters. The firm, founded in 1975, serves both plaintiff and defense attorneys, providing the link between the physician and the economist to precisely determine damages.