$1.1 Million Awarded in UCLA Suit : Courts: Doctor wins sex discrimination case involving former department head.

In the second blow to UCLA’s radiological sciences department in as many days, a jury has returned a $1.1 million sexual discrimination judgement against the department’s former chairman and the University of California Board of Regents.

The jury found for Dr. Antoinette Gomes, a tenured associate professor at UCLA, who alleged that Dr. Hooshang Kangarloo had prevented her promotion to full professor because she is a woman. The jury also found that Kangarloo had retaliated against Gomes over several years because she had filed a discrimination complaint against him through UCLA’s formal grievance process.

Among other things, Gomes alleged that Kangarloo refused to approve her request for business cards, denied her research opportunities and demoted her from section chief for cardiovascular radiology, replacing her with a man. Twice, she said, she was unfairly denied a promotion.

Gomes also alleged that Kangarloo frequently belittled her, referring to her as a “bitch.” On one occasion, Gomes alleged that Kangarloo announced at a faculty meeting that he did not trust Gomes to perform a particular procedure, saying, the patient “would be dead before you did it.”

During the three-week trial, Kangarloo maintained that he had not discriminated against Gomes, but made professional judgements based on his assessment of her research and teaching.

On Thursday, the jury awarded Gomes $801,550 in economic damages and $350,000 for her pain and suffering. Then on Friday, the jury assessed an additional $5,000 in punitive damages to be paid by Kangarloo.

“The University of California is my alma mater. . . I believe it’s supposed to do good things. So it was very painful to have to do this,” said Gomes, 52, who seemed more relieved than jubilant after the verdicts were announced.

“You can accept (discrimination), you can walk away from it or you can dig your heels in and say, ‘I won’t be treated like this.’ . . . My only hope is that (UCLA’s) awareness will be raised--that this will make it better.”

Kangarloo, who served as department chairman until the end of 1993 and remains a full professor, did not return phone calls Friday.

But Joseph D. Mandel, UCLA’s vice chancellor for legal affairs, indicated that the university continues to back Kangarloo. He said an internal review by Gomes’ peers found that she had been denied promotion because of her qualifications, not her gender.

“When we determine that indeed somebody has been discriminated against, we try to do the right thing,” Mandel said. “In this instance, based upon the internal process and our view of the evidence, I don’t think we’re yet of the view that a wrong of gender discrimination has been committed for which Dr. Gomes should be compensated. But again we have to examine where we are and decide where we’re going from here.”

Kathryn R. Janssen, the attorney who tried the case on UCLA’s behalf, said she and the lawyers for the Board of Regents have not yet decided whether to appeal the verdicts or file for post-verdict relief.

The sexual discrimination judgment came just days after billing irregularities in the radiological sciences department prompted a federal grand jury to indict two other former UCLA officials. According to the indictment, James G. Campbell, the department’s former administrative officer, and Benny Chow, its former chief financial officer, allegedly embezzled more than $600,000 from UCLA, duping the university into paying two employment agencies for work that was never performed.

Though Kangarloo--who was chairman of the department while the alleged fraud took place--was not implicated in the alleged scheme, the investigation did not reflect well on him.

Last month, an internal UCLA audit concluded that while there was no evidence that Kangarloo profited from the fraud, he had “neglected the financial and operational stewardship accorded him as department chair and, in doing so, compromised the best interests of the institution.”

Mandel, the vice chancellor for legal affairs, said that Kangarloo “may have been less than exemplary in performing his administrative duties” while the alleged fraud was unfolding. “I think if he were still the chair (of the department), that his continuation in that position would certainly be cast in doubt.”