Tanya Gomerman Leads Trial Team to Landmark Employment Verdict in Santa Clara County
SAN JOSE, CA — In a sweeping rebuke of corporate retaliation and workplace harassment, a Santa Clara County jury awarded $9.15 million to Peter Rogerson, a former senior marketing executive at Power Integrations, Inc., after finding that the publicly traded semiconductor company harassed him because of his disability and fired him for speaking up.
The verdict includes $3.15 million in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages, reflecting the jury’s unanimous conclusion that Power Integrations acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.
At the helm of the trial team was Tanya Gomerman, a seasoned plaintiffs’ trial lawyer whose courtroom command was on full display. Gomerman led jury selection, delivered the opening and closing statements, and played a critical role in shaping a trial strategy that resonated powerfully with the jury.
“Despite being praised for his performance, Power Integrations turned its back on an employee who gave ten years to the company the moment he stood up for himself,” said Gomerman. “When even the CEO refuses to condemn that kind of behavior, it sends a message that retaliation and harassment is tolerated. Corporate culture is shaped from the top down—and so is accountability.”
Disability-Based Mockery at the Executive Level
The trial centered around Power Integrations’ treatment of Rogerson, who suffered a serious injury during a work trip and required the use of a cane. After returning to work, Rogerson endured repeated mocking by colleagues and senior leadership. He was referred to as a “cripple,” told he looked “twenty years older,” and compared to a horse ready for the “glue factory.”
His direct supervisor, Vice President of Marketing Douglas Bailey, admitted at trial to calling Rogerson “gimpy”—and testified that he wasn’t ashamed of it.
Perhaps most damning was deposition footage shown to the jury of CEO Balu Balakrishnan refusing to condemn the remarks about Rogerson’s disability.
From Complaints to Retaliation
Filed court documents allege that Rogerson initially reported the harassment to his supervisor—but his complaint was never escalated to HR. Instead, he was let go just months later and given two options: resign immediately and take a severance, or continue working for four months. When Rogerson then made a formal complaint to HR and offered to provide supporting emails and texts, the company accelerated his termination and never investigated his claims. Records reflect that these were the key facts as presented to the jury.
“I dedicated over a decade of my life to this company and never imagined I’d be treated like I didn’t matter,” said Rogerson. “When I spoke up for myself, I was ostracized and punished for it by my colleagues. I’m grateful to the jury for seeing the truth and holding Power Integrations accountable.”
Unanimous Jury Verdict
The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Rogerson on the following claims:
- Harassment based on disability
- Failure to prevent harassment
- Retaliation
- Failure to prevent retaliation
They also found that the company’s conduct warranted punitive damages, underscoring the gravity of Power Integrations’ misconduct.
Gomerman | Bourn & Associates can be reached at https://www.gobolaw.com/
