Frank Pray, Employee Rights Attorney

Ani Coupourian sued her employer, Catholic Healtcare West (now "Dignity Health"), for sexual harassment and retaliation.  The resulting $167 million verdict, obtained by Sacarmento Trial Lawyer Lawrance Bohm, is thought to be the biggest of its kind in the U.S.  The verdict included $125 million in punitive damages, an amount almost certain to be subject to reduction or reversal following an inevitable appeal.  

Coupourian was a cardiac surgery  physician assistant who claimed she was repeatedly harassed by surgeons she assisted at Mercy General Hospital between 2006 adn 2008.  She claimed the harassment was daily.  She also claimed the hospital allowed unsafe and unnecessary procedures, and had poor patient care standards. She submitted 18 written complaints about these conditions during her 2 years of employment.   She also claimed she was denied meal and rest periods.  The hospital fired Coupourian for the stated reason of not being a team player and for failing to respond while "on call" over the weekend.  

Her attorney stated post verdict that the defense had always defended the case as if Coupourian were a "liar and a fraud."  The size of the punitive damages verdict suggests however that the jury perceived the defendant to the actual "liar and fraud."    

Some thoughts:  

1.  Federal court is not necessarily a hostile forum to try an employment law suit.

2.  Credibility counts as much as the evidence in a case, maybe more than the evidence, because the evidence is of no impact unless believed.

3.  This verdict reflects the jury's anger and disgust.

4.  Defense arrogance can be costly.

5.  Re punitive damages, be careful what you wish for.  The appeal has a good chance of success.  With $39 million in compensatory damages, and a benchmark constitutional range of "reason" between 2 to 4 times that amount, the verdict could be either sustained or cut in half. [The range varies by court decision, some cases allowing a factor as high as 9 times the compensatory damages].  The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a 10:1 ratio is almost certainly a violation of constitutional protections.  Wiki Summary.

6.  The large measure of compensatory damages suggests the jury expressed its anger by awarding a very liberal measure of emotional distress damages.  

7.  This verdict confirms the anecdotal data that when a defense attorney miscalculates the settlement value of a case, the jury verdict often exceeds the plaintiff's settlement offer by a much greater magnitude as compared to the Plaintiff's miscalculation and verdict that is less than the Defendant's offer.  

8.  Yes, this verdict will be an incentive to try more cases by the employee bar, and an incentrive to settle more cases by the defense bar.  

9.  18 written complaints:  too much of a good thing?  As a plaintiff's attorney, I begin to wonder--was she hoping to get fired?  It would be interesting to hear the defense's argument in closing that she was a "liar and a fraud" (as her attorney characterized the defense.)

10.  Sacramento juries are not necessarily more liberal than those in the state at large.  Federal judges and trial procedures also tend to reign in grand staging and hyperbole.  This case may well demonstrate the power of the evidence and good lawyering despite the restraints.  

[Attribution: This Article was derived from a report found at page 1 of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, March 2, 2012.]  

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate Division has provided employee's another grounds to avoid Arbitration of employment disputes. See Mayers v. Volt Management Corp (2/2/2012) No. G045036, as decided by our own Orange County based appellate panel.  

Volt provided for Arbitration of Employment Disputes by Notice in its Application form, its Employment Agreement, and its Acknowledgment of employee handbook.  An employee claiming he was not bound by the Arbitration Agreement had a week to consider the Agreement, and asked no questions about the Agreement.  All the versions of notice referred to "final and binding arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, in accordance with the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association in the state wher you are were last employed" [by Volt].  

This case would cause a normal lay person to go into convulsions in the reading of the technical reasons for invalidating the arbitration provision.  The quick and dirty statement the reasons are as follows:

1.  There is no conflict between California and federal law on the matter of whether the contract for arbitration is enforceable.  Why?  Because the "savings clause"  [9 U.S.C. Sec. 2] of the Federal Arbitration Act states that the States may declare arbitration agreements as unenforceable by "generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress or unconscionability."  

2.  The employment contract in Mayers was unconscionable because obtained by "duress," that is, on a "take it or leave it" basis; AND because 

3.  The employment contract was procedurally unconscionable because it referred to "rules of the American Arbitration Association" without providing Mayers a copy of those rules, or informing him how to obtain them, for review before signing the Agreement; AND because

4.  The employment contract was "substantively" unconscionable because it provided authority for the Arbitrator to award the employer attorney fees if the employer prevailed in defending the discrimination suit, an outcome not ordinarily granted to the employer under prevailing interpretations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Now, I find the ruling to be one of those head scratchers.  If a contract is actually obtained under duress, that is, "take it or leave it" in an unequal balance of power, what difference does it make that the party signing does not have the full contract terms for review (in this case the AAA rules)? Logically, the employee would have signed anyway.  Practically, I cannot imagine any employee actually taking the time to read the catalogue of rules and procedures for Arbitration, even if provided.  

I am convinced of one of two theories here:  1) Lawyers, and the judges they become, really are in an alternate Universe, or 2) this whole intellectual exercise is built upon a fiction intended to have a good civic purpose:  to avoid employers gaining forums more favorable to themselves, and less fair to employees.   

As my daughter a few years back would say:  "Whatever!"  I am happy for my clients that they are given the "Section 2 Savings Clause" by which to get their cases before a jury.  

Did Director Marc Cherry wack actress Nicolette Sheridan on the head, and then fire her after she complained to ABC?  ABC investigated and cleared Cherry.  Oh hum.  I see that self-interested outcome all the time.  Cherry said he "tapped" her head to give her "artistic direction."  Yeah sure.  What a defense:  Directors go about tapping heads all the time.  Its standard in the industry.  Tap. Tap.  Who's there?  Sue.  Sue Who?  Sue you for battery, and for wrongful termination in retaliation for my complaint about the battery.  

The trial began in L.A. on Wednesday, February 29, 2012.  Sheridan apparently believes her attorney has real theatrical skill.  She began sobbing during his opening statement.  She hugged him at its conclusion.  Sounds like the Academy Awards.  

The defense focuses on the decision to terminate Sheridan as a matter of carefully planned elimination of Sheridan's character, Edie Britt.  But Sheridan states the proof will be that the decision to kill off Britt was made only after Sheridan's complaint, and that there are two writers for the show ready to come forward to testify to that timing.  

Desperate housewives is in its last season, having debuted in 2004.  The head direction incident occurred in 2008.  Sheridan is seeking about $6 million in damages.  

This article is derived from information provided in the Los Angeles Daily Journal on March 1, 2012 at p.3.  

An employee alleging "termination in violation of public policy" [a whistleblower case] has the burden of proving that he sustained an injury sufficiently severe to merit damages.  The question articulated by the Calfornia and federal courts is whether the employee suffered "an adverse employment action."  

California Courts interpreting California anti-discrimination laws often look to federal court decisions interpreting federal anti-discrimination laws under “Title VII”.     A  U.S. Supreme Court case, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (Decided June 22, 2006) is positive for employees who claim they have been injured by employer retaliation because they protested discriminatory employer actions.

 In Burlington, plaintiff Sheila White was the only woman working in her department as a forklift operator at Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. After White complained internally that her supervisor had remarked several times that women should not be working in such a department, Burlington removed White from her forklift duties and assigned her to perform laborer tasks. Burlington explained that the reassignment reflected co-worker’s complaints that a “more senior man” should have the “less arduous and cleaner job” of forklift operator. 

 White then filed an EEOC complaint based on unlawful gender discrimination and retaliation. A few days after the filing of her complaint, Burlington suspended White without pay after an alleged disagreement with her supervisor, who claimed that White was insubordinate. White invoked internal grievance procedures.  Burlington concluded at the end of the grievance investigation that White had not been subordinate. Burlington therefore reinstated White and gave her back-pay for the 37 days she was suspended.

White then filed a claim in federal court alleging that Burlington’s corrective actions were insufficient.   She argued successfully that reinstatement and back-pay did not address the full measure of her losses, including her emotional injury. 

Burlington argued that White wasn’t harmed enough to justify a lawsuit.  The Supreme Court focused on just how much employment harm must occur for an employee to prove “adverse employment action”.   Requiring an employee to have extreme or obvious economic harm would operate to limit the number of cases that would succeed.  On the other hand, requiring little injury would operate to put employer’s on notice that retaliation, even if mild, could result in liability.  The test adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court was whether, from the viewpoint of a reasonable employee, the actions taken against the employee were sufficient to deter the employee (and others like her) from complaining about illegal discrimination.  The Court found that being without pay for 37 days would deter a reasonable employee from exercising her rights to complain internally of discrimination, even if she had access to a grievance procedure. 

 The California Supreme Court in Yanowitz v. L’Oreal (2005) addressed much the same question as the U.S. Supreme Court in Burlington, but reached its decision some months before the federal court.  The Yanowitz Court held that an employee suing for retaliation under California’s anti-discrimination law must demonstrate that the employer's retaliation caused a "material affect" on the "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment".  The State Supreme Court explained that a “material affect” was one that 1) detracted the employee from her job performance, 2) discouraged her from remaining on the job, and 3) kept her from advancing in her career.    

 The two Courts, while using different standards of “deterrence” [Burlington] or “material affect” [Yanowitz] actually are quite close in how they define “adverse employment action”.   Therefore it is likely that California Courts will rely on the analysis of the Burlington Court to decide future State discrimination/retaliation cases.  Employee attorneys would be wise to cite the Burlington case as a source of guidance, if not precedent, on the question.     

The following article is republished from Dr. Michelle Callahan.   Visit her website, www.DrMichelle.com, or visit her on Facebook.

© 2011 Dr. Michelle Callahan

There's a new breed of female bullies cropping up in workplaces across the country. According to a nationwide poll by the Employment Law Alliance:

·         45 percent of American workers say they've experienced workplace abuse.

·         40 percent of workplace bullies are women, and women bullies pick on other women more than 70 percent of the time.

·         Female bullies want to undermine, berate and intimidate the weaker women in their midst.

·         Being a target of a bully not only affects your work life, but can also affect your health, possibly causing headaches, loss of appetite, high blood pressure, insomnia, clinical depression, panic attacks and even PTSD.

Clearly workplace bullying is not something to be taken lightly. So why do some women do it?

·         They enjoy feeling powerful, especially when the other person doesn't stand up for herself. Also, women are often less confrontational when attacked. They tend to turn their backs on bad behavior in a way men might not.

·         They are threatened by the potential success of others, so they want to stop you before you outshine them or reveal their shortcomings.

·         They have a perfectionist or nit-picky personality combined with superiority about their skills and abilities.

·         They are affected by stress and pressure to be high performing, with more work to do and fewer people to do it.

·         They have mental health problems or a personality disorder.

How do you know whether you're being bullied, or simply dealing with a difficult boss or co-worker?

·         The clearest sign is that bullying is something that happens again and again -- it's not just your boss having a bad day every once and a while.

·         The abuse can include yelling; intimidating or humiliating behavior, like angry criticism and personal insults; or sabotage, whether it's vicious gossip or taking credit for someone else's work.

·         Generally, though, women aren't openly abusive; in fact, there's evidence that their style of bullying is usually subtler than men's.

·         Women are better at reading emotions, so they're good at little digs that most men wouldn't even register: the quick glare, or turning away and talking to someone else.

Ten Tips For Dealing With Being Bullied At Work

1.       Don't get emotional. Bullies take pleasure in emotionally manipulating people. Stay calm and rational to diffuse the situation.

2.       Don't blame yourself. Acknowledge that this is not about you; it's about the bully. Don't lose your confidence, or think you are incapable or incompetent. They are usually beating you at a mind game, not based on your actual work performance.

3.       Do your best work. The bully's behavior will seem more justified if you aren't doing your best work, or if you do things like come to work late, take long lunches, turn in work late, etc.

4.       Build a support network. Instead of allowing the bully to make you retreat into your office, work on building your relationships with your coworkers so that you have support and the bully doesn't turn them against you as well (although she will try and may even be successful).

5.       Document everything. Keep a journal (on your personal computer or in writing, but never leave it in the office) of what happened when (and who witnessed it) so that if you need to escalate this problem to Human Resources, you have the information you need to make your case. Keep emails and notes.

6.       Seek help. If you think you're being bullied, it's time to start talking to others who can help you manage this situation. Try a mentor, advocate, seasoned/experienced friend, even a legal advocate who specializes in bullying and inappropriate or discriminatory behavior in the workplace. Tread lightly when approaching your human resources department. They work for the company, not you, so you have to be careful about what you share depending on how well liked and supported your bully is within the organization. HR doesn't have the luxury of keeping everything you say confidential so don't treat a meeting with them like a counseling session where you should share everything you think/feel or assume that they can or will fix the problem for you.

7.       Get counseling. It will help you deal with the stress, especially if the bullying is already affecting your physical and mental health. You have to take care of yourself.

8.       Stay healthy. Maintain a healthy and balanced lifestyle outside of work to help you cope with the madness at work. Work out, get a good night's sleep and eat a healthy diet.

9.       Educate yourself. Learn everything you can about bullying, your company's policies on inappropriate behavior and occupational law regarding this kind of experience. The more you know, the better your chances of successfully dealing with this situation.

10.   Don't expect to change the bully. Real behavior change is difficult and it takes time. You have no control over a bully's willingness to accept that they have a problem and to work on it. You can do your best to manage the situation, but it's really the company's responsibility to be observant and responsive to the needs of their workers and the general work environment. In the worst-case scenario you may need to leave your job or be prepared for a long hard fight with your bully and your employer.

***

 Let’s see:  Torts, First Year:  Fraud:  a false representation of material fact stated with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of its truth, and reasonably relied upon by the recipient with resulting detriment and injury.  Now, how many law schools can do the basic issue spotting and analysis?   It seems 2012 will be the defining year for some law schools whether they pass their own tort exams. 

For example, the law schools may have to write a winning exam essay on this factual scenario:    A law school presents data to potential law school applicants stating that 85%-95% of is applicants who graduate are employed with median annual salaries of $160,000 within 9 months of graduation.  The truth is that the data is incomplete and misleading, and at best 40% of graduates are employed full time nationally within 9 months.  The student/graduates testify that they would not have applied or paid tuition but for his reliance on the data.   

New York class action attorney David Anzika said he will be suing 20 to 25 law schools every few months.  He obviously feels he has found the mother lode.  Will the defendants have the requisite legal talent to fight back?  Maybe they should call upon their own tort professors, who may have to shift from education to advocacy on behalf of their employers.  

There is a cultural perception that a law degree is the way to power and riches, and many college graduates chase that elusive carrot of big money instead of taking the time to know their true passions, talents and strengths.   When a student has dropped several hundred thousand dollars of tuition as well putting his family and social life on hold for several years, the hard cold reality of unemployment can definitely produce a bitter, vindictive graduate.

What Mr. Anzika has tapped into is a long accumulating disjuncture between the dream, the perception, and the reality of what a law degree really offers.  The irony may very well be that if students pursued a career in law only because they defaulted to an easy social/cultural definition of “significance,” they might very well be unhappy in their careers anyway, whatever their earnings. 

[Article derived from Daily Journal, online, 02-02-12:  “Four California Law Schools Sued Over Employment Data.”]

A psychopath is like you, but with your ego tendencies magnified greatly and your virtues severely atrophied.  For example, your occasional selfishness in putting yourself before others is the central guiding rule of life for a psychopath.  On the other hand, your tendency toward empathy and compassion when another suffers is non-existent for a psychopath. 

Why don’t we see a psychopath coming down the tracks before he or she slams into us?  Psychopaths are way too clever to be so obvious.  They do not play BY the rules; rather they “play the rules.”  That is, they know the advantage of appearing to be socially sensitive in order to manipulate people.  The truth is that they could care less about you.  It truly is “all about them.” 

What does it feel to have an encounter with a psychopath?  While the encounter may initially seem warm and charming, the longer-term picture will eventually emerge:  you’ve been used and abused.  You realize you were manipulated in some manner, and the psychopath had no care for you or your feelings whatever. 

If this behavior sounds narcissistic, it is, and psychopathology is a subset of narcissism.  The psychopath “kicks it up a notch” when it comes to narcissism.  A psychopath is completely without feeling for others, believes the rules don’t apply to them, and will engage in lying and cheating without conscience to get what they want.  People are objects to be manipulated.  They have highly skilled manipulative skills, including charm and faked emotions. 

If you thought psychopaths were all criminals, you would be wrong.  Most are not.  Most operate below the level of outright crime, but they still are poison to social relations, both at home and in the workplace.  If they manage a work unit, you will see the damage eventually:  distrust, negativity, poor morale, high levels of stress and depression, poor teamwork, and high levels of fear.  A psychopath can be identified also by several workplace characteristics:  they steal your ideas, take credit for your successes without recognizing you, blame you for their failures, and lie about their true motives and actions. 

It takes considerable opportunity and time to identify a psychopath because they are so adept at “blending in” to “normal” social behaviors.  But time is not on their side.  Psychopaths leave a wake of destruction behind them.  The problem in identification of a psychopathic boss in the present economy is that the opportunity to observe and track is lacking.  Employees are much more likely to change positions and companies every few years now.  Also, in a time of downsizing and general fear of lay-offs, the cold, calculating and manipulative personality type actually may be seen as an asset in making “hard decisions” and “getting the most” out of a decimated work force.  Psychopaths are unencumbered by feelings when cutting people and costs.  The psychopath sees the power to fire or lay-off as another weapon of manipulation.

Of course, there is no scientific tracking of psychopaths in the workplace.  Bernie Madoff was a charismatic charmer who inspired high levels of trust. He also had psychopathic tendencies.  He believed in his own grandiose statements of financial prowess, and he was willing to take extraordinary risks with other people’s lives and money.  He probably never lost a night’s sleep worrying about his victims. 

British researcher Clive Boddy and Canadian psychologist Robert Hare have written about the successful corporate psychopath.  They identify an increasing number of psychopathic personalities rising to positions of senior management.  In a 2010 paper they estimated that the percentage of such senior level management who were diagnosable as psychopaths was 4%.  The average in the general population is 1%. [“Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis”—2010 Journal of Business Ethics].  Why do psychopaths seem 4 times more likely to occupy the corner office in a work environment?  The answer is the “Trojan horse” principle:  Coming in, they look quite attractive.  Over time, the poison within spills out into the work force, causing mayhem. By the time they are “found out,” they have eliminated or demoralized many of the emotionally healthy, and positive personalities that they oversee.    

Companies that have strong values and practice decency in work relations are like healthy individuals:  they tend to attract what is good and to avoid or expel what is bad.  Dysfunctional individuals, and companies, of course, practice an opposite behavior pattern.  Denial is the hallmark of the dysfunctional organization.  “We really aren’t becoming irrelevant to the emerging new market” is an organizational idea, for example, that leads to bankruptcy.  Likewise, in work relations, the failure of trained Human Resources personnel to see that a senior manager is a major destructive force is a form of organizational denial.  Intervening to cleanse the system of such poison requires courage and clarity.  “Blowing the whistle” is of course more difficult if the psychopath is a CEO or Senior Vice President.  Many times, good people simply leave, and the bleeding continues. 

This article is like a flare shot into the night, in the hope it will bring some focus and resolve to an individual reader needing to make a decision about how to respond to a “successful corporate psychopath.” 

_______________________

[This article was inspired primarily by a CNN piece by Kevin Voight, Jan. 20, 2012:  “Bad Bosses:  The Psycho-path to Success?”]

Employees seeking privacy in the use of smart phones and laptops at work are advised to use only their own equipment and to pay their own usage bills.  If the phone is provided by the employer and the account paid by the employer, the likelihood of a court finding no legal right of privacy is high.  If the employer provides the phone, pays the bill, and issues a clear written policy that all information on or through the phone is subject to company inspection, then it is virtually certain that personal use of the device will be without privacy protection.     Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4^th 1047.

The situation is less clear where the phone is owned by the employee, but is used for both personal and business purposes, and the employer reimburses the employee all or part of the bill.   In the absence of an employer’s required privacy waiver, I do not believe that paying for business calls entitles the employer full access to an employee’s private mobile phone communications.  However, there is nothing that prevents an employee from knowingly waiving his privacy interests in mobile phone data stored on the phone.  If the employee signs an acknowledgement and waiver of such privacy rights after being informed of Company policy, potentially everything on the phone becomes accessible to employer inspection.  Employees therefore should take seriously any such waivers and acknowledgments they may be required to sign as a condition of receiving payment of the mobile phone bills.  TGB Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4^th 433. 

But even in the face of a broad waiver of privacy rights, I question the validity of such waivers if they are obtained as conditions of receiving reimbursement for the costs of business calls made on employee-owned mobile devices.  The duty to reimburse employee costs is statutory and unconditional and is itself a matter of “public policy” under Labor Code Section 2802.   The more reasoned approach is that the employer is to be restricted in viewing data that pertains only to company business.   

What about the situation however where  the employer has no express policy concerning privacy of mobile phone data, but reimburses the employee either a fixed amount or an “actual cost” amount for business related phone calls on the employee’s mobile phone?  Assume further of course, that the employee uses the phone for both personal and business calls, and perhaps even has multiple applications on the phone which are for his personal use only.  These apps can include abundant “private” information, such as journal entries, GPS tracking histories, music and photos.  In my opinion, the employer has no right to seize the phone, and no right to seize the data on the phone.  At best, the employer might succeed in obtaining a subpoena for the business data only, or reasonably require the employee as a condition of continuing employment, to disclose only the business call or business app data. 

 The U.S. Supreme Court in City of Ontario v. Quon (2010) 130 S. Ct. 2619, held against employee ‘s claim of privacy rights in that case, but also declined to make a blanket rule for when data was without privacy protection on employer issued digital communications equipment. In Quon, a public employer issued mobile devices to its officers and paid the full cost of the devices.   The police department wanted to determine if the usage plan they had selected was too low, after incurring overage charges under their current plans.  The service provider provided the Department with transcripts of usage.  The Department discovered Quon had used the device for personal sexually explicit text messaging, and disciplined him.  The Court assumed Quon had a reasonable privacy interest in the messages (without having to address the issue head on), but also held that the facts of the situation justified the search of the text messages as part of a reasonable business function.  In skirting the privacy expectation issue, the court wrote that the technology of mobile communication devices was advancing so quickly that a blanket privacy rule would be premature.

Where does that leave us?  Employees still have privacy rights, and merely that they use a personal communication device to sometimes conduct business does not open the door for employer inspection of all data on the phone.  Even if an employer required an employee to waive privacy rights to private communications on the employee’s own device, the employee’s resistance to such a demand would likely be justified, and if the employer fired the employee for his resistance, the employer would be liable for “wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”  The “public policy” is found in both the U.S. and California Constitutions guaranteeing the right of personal privacy.  

She was frail, a bit humped over, but very fashionably dressed for a Christmas Eve morning stroll along the cliffs overlooking Dana Point harbor.

Her lipstick was bright red, and her make-up subdued and tasteful.  She wore her age well, her youthful soul informing her smile, eyes, and speech.  She sat down at a bench looking out over the ocean.  I stood some distance away, aware of this little figure who walked slowly into my view.  “Good morning” she said brightly.  “Good morning!” I replied as brightly.  It was Christmas eve, and a time to be friendly. I walked over to her, and stood there a while, speaking of the beauty of the day.  “I come here often,” she said, “It make’s me feel good to be here.”  I love to converse with older people, because I love learning their stories.  I knew this woman had a story.  She was too alive, to energized, and too engaging not to have adventures to tell.  Little did I know the story was ongoing, and wonderful.

I will spare you of my journalistic inquiries.  I am an incorrigible interrogator. It is part of my training as a lawyer, but also, just a penchant for being nosey about things that interest me.   I learned that my new acquaintance was Sonia Neil, originally from Buenos Aires, Argentina.  She had memories of growing up along the coast, always close to the ocean, and never happy away from the sea.  She shared wonderful memories of childhood, and  mother who loved her. She married, and a daughter was born.  Her daughter wished to pursue the performing arts, and so Sonia left everthing behind to give her that opportunity in the United States.  They managed to first locate in Houston, where there were some Argentine friends.   Eventually, she came to live in San Clemente California. 

She mentioned that she had given up her own dreams to give her daughter that opportunity.  “What dreams were those?” I asked.  “I sing.” she stated with a calm confidence. “I have always sung.”  I was stunned.  She spoke as one fully present, and excited.  “Tell me more.”  “Oh, I recently gave a recital.”  “Who arranged the recital?” I asked.  “I did!” Sonia responded, a little indignant.  “Did you sing in Spanish or English?”  I asked, assuming as an Argentinian, she might prefer Spanish.  “Italian.”  she answered.  “I sing opera.” she answered.  “You presently sing opera?!”  “Of course.  The woman who hosted my recital wants to be my manager.”  She paused.  The moment was perfect.  A light warm breeze wafted our skin.  The sun felt good--an incredible Christmas Eve day in Calfornia. 

After a moment, she added that she studied under a master at the El Teatro Colon in Buenos Aires, or as she called it for my uneducated sake, “the famous “Colon Theater.”  I confessed my ignorance.  It is like the “Metropolitan Opera” at the Kennedy Center in New York, she graciously explained.  Life it seemed had taken her away from her dream to support the dreams of others, but she continued singing.  For a time she lived in Houston, she said, and would sing with accompaniment of retired members of the Houston Symphony Orchestra each month in the large concert hall of the symphony.  She sang because singing was who she was.

I was about ask her to sing for me, and hesitated.  The time and place were not ideal.  To my delight, she did something possibly better.  She wore a little purse about her neck, one possible made by or for her especially.  She opened  a little zipper, perhaps two inches long, and pulled from the purse a little square of paper, and upon it was handprinted her name and “YouTube.”  “My nephew recorded me.” She explained. “I don’t really know anything about the internet.”  “Have you seen the YouTube videos made of you?”  I asked.  “Oh yes.”  she answered.  “Are you pleased with the results?”  “Very much.” she replied without hesitation.  I placed the little paper in my billfold carefully.  We said goodbye, and I drove to the nearest coffee house to gain access to an internet host.

So it is, I am sitting here at the Coffee Bean in Dana Point, writing this story of Sonia Neil.  I could continue with my story, but what a waste when I can give you her gift directly. 

Here is the link to Sonia’s singing, who at age 83 demonstrates that youth is a very relative term.

Sonia Neil on YouTube.