David production shows how to#
David production shows code#
David production shows trial#

The Theater In September 2017, Zirpel began working at a church on Hollywood Boulevard that ADP was converting into a theater for hologram productions (the theater). His annual salary at the time ADT terminated his employment was $72,800. Zirpel became ADP’s vice president of operations in March 2014.

David production shows how to#

He learned the technology, how to install the equipment, and how to stage productions that ADP created for television shows, concerts, and museums. During his employment, Zirpel became heavily involved in hologram production. Zirpel was employed by ADP from 2013 to 2017. ADP initially produced internet programming, but in 2014 it began focusing on hologram technology, by which images are projected onto a screen and reflected for audience viewing. 1 2 BACKGROUND The Parties ADP is an entertainment and media company owned by its principal, Alkiviades David (David). All further statutory references are to the Labor Code, unless stated otherwise.

David production shows trial#

The trial court denied ADP’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial. The jury further found that ADP terminated Zirpel’s employment with malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury further found that ADP wrongfully terminated Zirpel’s employment after he refused to work on an equipment installation at a theater because the work would violate the law and because Zirpel reasonably believed that the work would violate the law. The jury awarded Zirpel $7,068,717 in damages (consisting of $368,717 in economic damages, $700,000 in non-economic damages, and $6 million in punitive damages). (ADP) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Karl Zirpel (Zirpel) after a jury found ADP liable for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code1 section 232.5, which prohibits an employer from discharging an employee who discloses information about the employer’s working conditions, and section 1102.5, subdivisions (b) and (c), which prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who refuses to participate in an activity that would violate the law or who discloses information the employee reasonably believes would disclose a violation of law. Defendant and appellant Alki David Productions, Inc. Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro and Fred D. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dennis J. ALKI DAVID PRODUCTIONS, INC., Defendant and Appellant. Further, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Plaintiff’s disclosure was a substantial motivating reason for his termination.įiled 6/20/23 Certified for Publication 7/14/23 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR KARL ZIRPEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, B317334 (Los Angeles County Super. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Plaintiff’s continued work at the theater would have violated the law, and the trial court’s finding in this regard was not legally erroneous.

David production shows code#

The court explained that the record contains substantial evidence of multiple other municipal code violations in the correction notice issued by a city inspector on September 25, 2017.

The jury further found that ADP terminated Plaintiff’s employment with malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury awarded Plaintiff $7,068,717 in damages (consisting of $368,717 in economic damages, $700,000 in non-economic damages, and $6 million in punitive damages). (ADP) appealed from the judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff after a jury found ADP liable for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 232.5, which prohibits an employer from discharging an employee who discloses information about the employer’s working conditions, and section 1102.5, subdivisions (b) and (c), which prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who refuses to participate in an activity that would violate the law or who discloses information the employee reasonably believes would disclose a violation of the law.