$4M Verdict: Chevron Loses Disability Bias Suit to Employee

Case Background

A Los Angeles jury delivered a staggering verdict against energy giant Chevron U.S.A., Inc., finding the company responsible for discriminating against a long-term, high-performing employee after medically disqualifying him from a lucrative overseas promotion. The case centered on Mark Snookal, a veteran engineer who had spent over a decade building a distinguished career at Chevron's El Segundo refinery. The legal battle, captioned Mark Snookal v. Chevron USA, Inc., unfolded in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under case number 2:23-cv-6302-HDV-AJR.

Cause

The core of the dispute involved a dream promotion that Chevron had offered to Mr. Snookal in 2019: the Reliability Engineering Manager (REM) position in Escravos, Nigeria. This senior role a Grade 22 salary position with eligibility for a quick promotion to Grade 23 came with a 55% boost in base pay, additional rotational assignment compensation, and a schedule requiring work for only six months of the year, providing a better work-life balance for Mr. Snookal and his family. He had gladly accepted the offer.

However, before the scheduled August 2019 start date, the company required Mr. Snookal to undergo a mandatory medical screening. Mr. Snookal had already managed an asymptomatic and stable dilated aortic root with medication. While an initial company-selected doctor had cleared him as "fit for duty" with minor, irrelevant restrictions, a subsequent review by a Nigerian physician, Dr. Eshiole Asekomeh, deemed him "not fit for duty" for the assignment. Chevron immediately rescinded the job offer, citing his failure to pass the Medical Suitability for Expat Assignment (MSEA) requirement for the remote job site.

Injury

Following the rescinded promotion, the company had already filled Mr. Snookal’s previous team lead position. Although he applied for three other qualified positions within Chevron, the company did not select him for any of them. Faced with no path forward, Mr. Snookal asserted that Chevron constructively terminated his employment, leaving him with no choice but to resign for the sake of his health and career. He ultimately accepted a new position with another company, one that paid less, offered fewer benefits, and required him to relocate to another state. The Plaintiff testified that he suffered emotional and mental distress, lost significant income and benefits, and incurred medical expenses as a direct result of Chevron’s actions.

Damages Sought

Mr. Snookal had sought judgment against the Defendants, demanding recovery for economic losses, including lost wages and benefits, and non-economic damages, covering his pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Crucially, the Plaintiff also requested punitive and exemplary damages, arguing that Chevron’s outrageous conduct had been carried out with malice, fraud, and/or oppression, demonstrating a conscious disregard for his rights.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Mark Snookal

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Dolores Y. Leal | Olivia Flechsig | Hwashiuan Sarah Fan

·       Experts for Plaintiff(s): Anthony Reading | Alexander R. Marmureanu

Defendant(s): Chevron U.S.A, Inc.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Tracey A. Kennedy | Robert E. Mussig | Linda Z. Shen | Hwashiuan Sarah Fan

·       Experts for Defendant(s): Chen Song | Ujomoti Akintunde

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The trial developed into a stark contest between the Plaintiff's decade-long record of exceptional performance and Chevron's reliance on a specific medical clearance for a specialized assignment.

Claims

The Plaintiff’s legal team grounded its case in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), asserting four distinct causes of action.

Disability Discrimination

Counsel for Mr. Snookal asserted that Chevron had engaged in discrimination based on Mr. Snookal’s actual or perceived physical disability. They contended that Mr. Snookal was fully qualified for the management position and that Chevron's rejection of his own physician’s clearance constituted discrimination.

Failure to Accommodate

The Plaintiff further argued that Chevron had an obligation under FEHA to engage in a meaningful dialogue to find a reasonable accommodation for his perceived disability. His counsel maintained that the company made no serious effort to offer Mr. Snookal any accommodation for his condition so that he could perform the essential functions of the job, which did not involve any heavy physical labor.

Age Discrimination

Mr. Snookal, who was forty-seven years old when he applied for the three new positions, also filed a claim for age discrimination. The complaint alleged that the three individuals whom Chevron selected for the roles he had applied for were all substantially younger than he was.

Wrongful Constructive Discharge

Finally, the Plaintiff alleged that Chevron’s actions had created a hostile and untenable work environment, ultimately forcing him to quit. Counsel argued that the company’s refusal to honor the promotion, coupled with filling his old job and denying him access to internal replacement roles, amounted to a constructive termination in violation of public policy protecting workers from disability discrimination.

Defense

Chevron’s counsel vehemently denied all allegations, contending that the company had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The defense primarily centered on the inherent risks of the specialized overseas position. Chevron admitted that the job site was in a remote area in Nigeria and that it possessed limited medical facilities. Therefore, the company argued that it had a duty to require a successful Medical Suitability for Expat Assignment (MSEA). The defense maintained that the decision to rescind the offer was Justified Conduct because Mr. Snookal’s condition presented a Direct Threat to Himself or Others in such a remote, medically sparse environment. The company insisted that its decision had been based on professional medical advice and its own corporate safety policy, not on discriminatory intent.

Jury Verdict

The nine jurors unanimously found that Mr. Snookal had been able to perform the essential job duties of the Reliability Engineering Manager position in Nigeria. Furthermore, the jury concluded that Mr. Snookal’s perceived physical disability had been a substantial motivating reason for Chevron's decision to rescind the job offer. Crucially, the jury explicitly disagreed with Chevron’s central defense, finding that Mr. Snookal's disability did not pose an immediate and substantial degree of risk to his or others’ health or safety. Finally, the jury determined that Chevron’s recission of the REM position had been a substantial factor in causing harm to Mr. Snookal. This series of findings paved the way for a massive financial award against Chevron.

The jury awarded Mr. Snookal significant compensatory damages for the harm he suffered:

• Past Economic Loss: The jury awarded $1 million to cover his lost wages and benefits from the date of the discrimination until the date of the verdict.

• Future Economic Loss: The jury awarded $1.1 million to compensate for the reduction in his future earning capacity.

• Past Noneconomic Loss: The jury awarded $1 million for the emotional distress and pain and suffering Mr. Snookal endured leading up to the verdict.

• Future Noneconomic Loss: The jury awarded $900,000 for the emotional distress and suffering he would likely experience in the future.

In total, the jury assessed Mr. Snookal’s compensatory damages at $4,000,000.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com