San Francisco Chronicle
Business Section, page B1
Friday, August 18, 2000


Ex-Oracle VP Wins $2.7 Million Suit
Pregnant executive claims discrimination

By Todd Wallack
CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER

In the latest embarrassment for Oracle, a San Francisco jury ruled that the high-tech company wrongfully fired a vice president because she was five months pregnant and she blew the whistle on co-workers who illegally ripped off parts of a German software program.

The Superior Court jury Wednesday awarded Sandy Baratta $2.7 million - about $2 million in canceled stock options, $300,000 in lost wages and $200,000 for emotional distress. The jury declined to award punitive damages.

"We're delighted," said her attorney, Alan Exelrod

Oracle, however, insisted that Baratta, 39, was fired because she mistreated her staff. For instance, the company argued that Baratta ordered an underling to send an e-mail to a manager pleading to let Baratta keep a group of employees who were slated to be transferred.

"Oracle intends to challenge the verdict . . . and believes there is a high likelihood the verdict will not be allowed to stand," said Jennifer Glass, a spokeswoman for the Redwood Shores database software company.

Regardless, the verdict is just the latest setback for Oracle.

A month ago, the company was caught using gumshoes to investigate groups tied to its longtime rival, Microsoft. And days after that, the firm's venerated No. 2 executive, Ray Lane, abruptly resigned after the company's colorful chief executive, Larry Ellison, tightened his grip on the firm and stripped Lane of many of his duties.

And at least two other Oracle executives recently sued the company for wrongful termination:

Wall Street, however, has shrugged off the lawsuits. Shares jumped 42.75 yesterday to $83.94. The stock is up 49 percent this year and 349 percent over the past year.

In Baratta's case, she said Oracle suddenly fired her over the telephone on April 30, 1999, just before she boarded a plane at San Francisco International Airport to meet with German softwaremaker SAP.

The day before, Baratta complained to her boss that she believed Oracle's software group had lifted parts of SAP's R/3 software product, business software that includes accounting software and so-called "customer relations management" software to let salespeople track orders.

Specifically, Baratta claimed she learned that Oracle's CRM group may have had improper access to confidential portions of the SAP program through an Oracle worker based at SAP's headquarters in Germany.

Oracle and SAP are fierce competitors in some software markets, but a few Oracle teams work in concert with SAP on the condition that they not leak trade secrets to other parts of the company.

Baratta testified that she alerted Gary Bloom, who reports to Ellison, that someone may have violated the confidentiality pledge, and was promptly fired. SAP declined comment.

In addition, Baratta also testified that Oracle retaliated against her for complaining about remarks Bloom made about other pregnant executives before he knew that Baratta was pregnant.

Baratta was a vice president of global alliances at the time she was let go. During the trial, she was working as a consultant for New Moon, a San Jose startup.

Legal experts said the case is somewhat unusual because most cases are settled or dismissed long before they reach trial. The judgment was also larger than average for an employment discrimination case, apparently because of the large stock option package involved. Baratta earned about $350,000 a year.

E-mail Todd Wallack at .


 

 

 

Copyright Notice

2000 Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP, All Rights Reserved. The information contained in this web site is intended to convey general information about Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP.  It should not be construed as legal advice or opinion.  It is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship.  Any email sent via the Internet to Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, LLP using email addresses listed in this web site would not be confidential and would not create an attorney-client relationship.