California Employment Law Blog

California Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Decision in Wrongful Termination Case

Published on: May 30, 2023 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

In a recent case, the Second District Court of Appeals Division 8 in California issued an opinion in an appeal involving a termination dispute between an employer and an employee. The plaintiff is a former employee of the defendant, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Cedars). The plaintiff contends that she was wrongfully terminated by Cedars based on disability discrimination and also made a claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). At trial, Cedars filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court issued a written order granting the motion.

Facts of the Case

Plaintiff began working for Cedars in 2000. Throughout her tenure, she worked in an administrative role with no patient care responsibilities. In 2007, the plaintiff was diagnosed with stage III colorectal cancer. The treatment was effective to rid her of cancer but left her with lingering side effects. These included unspecified allergies, a weakened immune system, and neuropathy—damage to the nerves resulting in an ongoing “tingling sensation” in her fingers and toes. None of these side effects limited her ability to perform her job functions, and she successfully returned to work for Cedars in 2009.

California Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision in Wrongful Termination Age Discrimination Case

Published on: April 30, 2023 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

In a recent case, the Second District Court of Appeals Division 8 in California issued an opinion in an appeal involving a termination dispute between an employer and an employee. The plaintiff is a former employee of the defendant, St. Cecilia Catholic School. The plaintiff contends that she was wrongfully terminated by St. Cecilia for age discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. At trial, St. Cecilia filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court issued an order granting the motion.

Facts of the Case

St. Cecilia is a Catholic elementary school in Los Angeles offering a faith-based education for children from kindergarten to eighth grade. The plaintiff was employed by St. Cecilia for roughly 40 years from 1978 to 2018. She began working at the school as a part-time secretary and office administrator. The plaintiff’s job duties included answering phones, filing, photocopying, maintaining records, processing registrations, parent communications, and ensuring that the office ran smoothly. She maintained that role until her termination at the end of the 2017-2018 academic year. In 1999, the plaintiff began working as a part-time art teacher at St. Cecilia in addition to her office administrative duties. As an art teacher, she taught studio art and art history to students and occasionally served as a substitute teacher for other subjects from time to time. Throughout her time as an employee, the plaintiff was the school’s only art teacher.

In 2017, a new, younger employee, was hired to work in the school office to do administrative tasks. The plaintiff trained the new employee. In the summer of 2018, a new principal arrived at St. Cecilia. The principal subsequently decided to eliminate the fine arts teaching position, eliminating the plaintiff’s role. They did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to return to administrative work in the front office. Following her termination, the plaintiff filed a suit contending that she was wrongfully terminated by St. Cecilia for age discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. At trial, the trial court granted St. Cecilia summary judgment after St. Cecilia argued that the plaintiff’s claim for age discrimination was barred by the ministerial exception as undisputed evidence showed that in her role as an art teacher, she failed to fulfill her responsibility of educating her students in the Catholic faith.

The Plaintiff’s Burden of Providing Evidence in Disability Discrimination Claims

Published on: March 7, 2023 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

In a recent California Court of Appeals case decided in February 2023, the court’s decision illuminates the burden that employees bear, specifically employees who are bringing disability discrimination claims against their employers. In this case, a registered nurse’s employment was terminated by the County after the County determined that she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job after the nurse sought to return to her position under new restrictions after an absence. The County also decided that an accommodation was not possible. The nurse filed a lawsuit against the county on various claims of disability discrimination, in addition to a retaliation claim.

A closer look at the details of the case reveals that the plaintiff, a registered nurse, suffered an injury while pushing a patient on a gurney. The nurse did not immediately report the work incident, hoping her injury would improve, but once she realized that it was not improving, she sought medical treatment. After her healthcare provider indicated that she should be placed in a sit-down job that required no standing, the County employer accommodated the work restrictions. Before the lawsuit, multiple incidents occurred, including the County determining that the nurse could not perform her essential job functions. Ultimately, the nurse decided to file a lawsuit against the County.

The lower trial court ruled in favor of the County, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of discrimination, and the plaintiff filed an appeal. The appellate court ultimately agreed with the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence. In the opinion, the appellate court lays out the elements required to establish disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Under the Act, a plaintiff is required to present evidence that he or she (1) suffers from a disability, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability.

California Appellate Court Decides Against an Employee Claiming Racial Discrimination

Published on: February 27, 2023 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

In a recent opinion decided by the Napa County Superior Court, the court decided against the plaintiff in an employment lawsuit, bringing to light the importance of meeting filing deadlines and understanding and following the legal rules put in place regarding certain filing requirements. In this case, an employee of the California Department of State Hospitals was disciplined by her employer with a temporary salary reduction and was later terminated. The employee unsuccessfully challenged the salary reduction and termination in administrative proceedings before the State Personnel Board but failed to seek judicial review of those adjudications. She ultimately sued the Department under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act for retaliation, race-based harassment, and failure to prevent harassment. She also amended her complaint to assert a claim under the California Whistleblower Protection Act.

The plaintiff was a Black woman who was employed by the Department. She filed the lawsuit in April 2019 and filed her first amended complaint in March 2021. The amended complaint, amongst multiple other incidents, alleges multiple incidents of racist terms by coworkers and alleges multiple instances of disciplinary actions that the plaintiff believed were in retaliation for reporting her coworker’s racist comments. The incidents span from 2015 to 2018. The Plaintiff appealed to the State Personnel Board, and after two-day evidentiary hearings, the Board sided against the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the higher court that reviewed the Plaintiff’s case found against her for multiple reasons. One reason provided is that two events that she discussed in her complaint occurred much earlier and were outside of the filing deadline. The court also considered whether certain claims she made were barred because they were not distinguishable from earlier claims made. Additionally, the court found that her whistleblower claim was barred because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In other words, because the plaintiff did not seek judicial review of the administrative decisions that the State Personnel Board made by timely filing a required petition, she was no longer able to bring the claims that she brought. Certain legal rules require that all judicial remedies are exhausted first. This means that the legal rules prevent plaintiffs from bringing claims that should have been brought in a previous suit involving the same parties and also bars litigating the same issues that were argued and decided in the first suit.

California Appeals Court Affirms Lower Court Decision in Wrongful Termination Case

Published on: February 21, 2023 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

In a recent case, the First District Court of Appeals Division 5 in California issued an opinion in an appeal involving a dispute between an employer and an employee. The plaintiff is a former organizer for the defendant, the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). The plaintiff contends that she was wrongfully terminated by the NUHW under numerous statutes, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court issued a written order granting NUHW summary judgment and dismissing all the causes of action in the plaintiff’s complaint.

Facts of the Case

As an employee of the NUHW, the plaintiff was hired in September 2015 as an internal organizer. The NUHW employs external organizers, who encourage non-unionized employees to join the union, and internal organizers, who develop and organize members to be active participants in the union. Although the plaintiff had some union experience, she did not have experience organizing union members in hospitals or organizing workers in technical job classifications. Nevertheless, she was assigned as an internal organizer to two hospitals in Sonoma County, Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (SRMH) and Petaluma Valley Hospital (PVH).

During the trial, the plaintiff’s former supervisor testified that the plaintiff initially performed well. When she was hired, NUHW was negotiating with SRMH for a successor contract, and the plaintiff was able to communicate with Spanish-speaking union members and organize them to support the contract. The contract was ratified, and the plaintiff was given a positive skills assessment.

California Appeals Court Rejects Age Discrimination Appeal

Published on: January 21, 2023 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

The outcome of a case can turn on the evidence each party presents. As a result, parties to a lawsuit will seek to include their evidence and may object to the other party’s evidence. A recent opinion from the Second District Court of Appeals Division 4 in California demonstrates the importance of these evidence disputes to the strength of each party’s case. The case involved an appeal from a lower court decision granting an employer’s motion for summary judgment. The employee claims his former employer, Fox Digital Enterprises, Inc., eliminated his shifts as a finishing editor due to his age. At the time of his termination, the employee was 63 years old, the third-oldest finishing editor. The employee filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Both parties objected to the opposing side’s evidence.

Facts of the Case

At Fox, the plaintiff had edited promotional videos since 1984. In 2018, his supervisor eliminated his and the oldest editor’s shifts. Later, Fox gave additional shifts to the youngest editor. A few months prior, Fox had informed employees of anticipated staffing cuts due to budgetary constraints. However, the plaintiff argued he was terminated because of his age. Fox countered by citing issues with his speed and tardiness. Several supervisors and editors testified that the plaintiff was one of the slowest editors in his department. The plaintiff countered that he produced meticulous, quality work, and Fox’s reported concerns were a pretext for age discrimination.

To support their claims, each party submitted several forms of evidence. The plaintiff claimed he heard a supervisor say that another editor was the slowest. He provided declarations from former Fox employees who attested to his high-quality work and punctuality. He also cited evidence of finishing editors’ average hourly wages to argue his above-average pay reflected strong performance. Fox objected to this evidence and provided its own pay data.

California Plaintiff Unsuccessfully Appeals Employment Discrimination Case

Published on: January 11, 2023 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

In a recent case, the Third District Court of Appeals Division in California ruled on an appeal involving a former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) who lodged wrongful termination allegations against Ampla Health, a nonprofit healthcare provider serving low-income families. The plaintiff sued her former employer for race and gender discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination after Ampla Health eliminated her CFO position and designated her responsibilities to other employees. Ampla Health filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. The trial court granted the motion in full, and the plaintiff appealed. In its recent opinion, the Appeals Division affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

Soon after the plaintiff was hired as CFO of Ampla Health in 2016, the CEO received complaints about the plaintiff’s attitude toward staff and expressed concern that she disclosed confidential and inaccurate information to the board. Ampla Health claimed the plaintiff repeatedly left work without requesting time off, resulting in a threat to dock her pay. After a poor annual review, she did not receive a raise. However, every other executive received a raise, despite negative findings in their performance audits. Finally, after she reported Ampla Health’s various financial woes to the board, the nonprofit eliminated her position to reduce costs. The CEO further cited poor performance and interpersonal skills as reasons for her termination.

On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged discrimination and retaliation. First, she lodged complaints of racial and gender bias against other high-level staff members. Second, she claimed CEO allowed non-Black employees to bypass attendance policies. She also noted that she was terminated while on paid family leave. She brought causes of action for race and gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and retaliation under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), among other claims.

California Appeals Court Hears Anti-SLAPP Employment Law Case

Published on: December 21, 2022 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

In a recent case, the Second District Court of Appeals Division 5 in California issued an opinion in an appeal involving a termination dispute between an employer and an employee. The employer, Phonexa Holdings, hired the employee, the former chief marketing officer, a few months prior to firing her after she raised concerns about the company’s compliance with COVID-19 public health measures. Following the termination, Phonexa filed a lawsuit claiming that the former employee and her husband stole proprietary information from the company. The former employee filed a cross-complaint asserting various employment claims, and both sides filed anti-SLAPP motions to strike the other’s lawsuits. The appeals court decision resolved the appeal from the trial court’s order denying Phonexa’s anti-SLAPP motion, with the appeals court ultimately denying the appeal, affirming the lower court’s decision to deny Phonexa’s anti-SLAPP motion.

Facts of the Case

Phonexa sued the former employee in August of 2020, alleging that her relationship with senior management at the company deteriorated after she took two days off of work starting on July 20, 2020, and copied the hard drive of her work computer onto a series of personal drives. Phonexa alleges that she copied the electronic materials at the direction of an executive at a competing company in order to steal Phonexa’s trade secrets. The former employee filed a cross-complaint asserting multiple employment claims, including that Phonexa’s chief executive officer (CEO) questioned and interrogated employees who were working from home and made statements that COVID-19 was a hoax and an attempt to disrupt the 2020 presidential election, among other claims. When the former employee shared concerns regarding the return to work policy with human resources in May 2020, the CEO demanded the complaining employees’ names and threatened retaliation.

The former employee worked from home for the duration of her time at Phonexa after advising them that she suffers from a preexisting medical condition that required her to be cautious about contracting COVID-19. Despite this, the CEO asked her numerous times when she planned to work from the office. During a phone call on July 20, 2020, the CEO berated and belittled her, and two days after the call when she submitted a formal written complaint about the company policy, the former employee was terminated.

California Appeals Court Denies Appeal in Wrongful Termination Case, Affirming Lower Court Decision

Published on: December 8, 2022 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

In a recent case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals Division 3 in California issued an opinion in an appeal involving a termination dispute between an employer and an employee. The employer, Airborne Systems North America of CA, Inc., terminated the employee after a coworker complained about inappropriate conduct towards her. Following the termination, the employee filed a lawsuit for, inter alia, wrongful employment termination and violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act against Airborne and Airborne’s human resource manager. At trial, judgment was granted in favor of Airborne, and the employee appealed the decision shortly thereafter.

Facts of the Case

In July 2017, the employee exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment Housing alleging that Airborne terminated his employment because of his age and because of his mental disability, resulting from the enormous stress from the hostile work environment. He further alleged in that complaint that during the time he was employed by Airborne he received excellent performance evaluations and maintained a great work record. After being terminated, the person that replaced him was younger and had significantly less experience.

The following year in July 2018, the employee filed a complaint against Airborne and specific individual defendants, making claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, defamation, harassment, retaliation, disability discrimination, race discrimination, age discrimination, marital status discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In August 2019, after several amendments, the employee filed a third amended complaint. In December 2020, Airborne filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for summary adjudication. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that Airborne produced evidence showing, inter alia, the decision to terminate Forrester’s employment was based on a report of inappropriate conduct, and thus was made for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. The burden then shifted to the employee, but he failed to meet his burden as he did not present evidence. He then appealed the decision in a timely manner.

California Appeals Court Partially Upholds Appeal in Wrongful Discharge Case

Published on: November 25, 2022 | The Nourmand Law Firm, APC

In a recent case, the Second District Court of Appeals Division 5 in California issued an opinion in an appeal involving a discharge dispute between an employer and an employee. The plaintiff is a former plant manager for the defendant, FlashCo, a manufacturer of prefabricated roof flashings. The plaintiff contends that he was discharged from his employment by the defendants in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, also known as the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and public policy. In total, the plaintiff set forth nine causes of action, six for violations of the FEHA, two for violations of the CFRA, one for interference, one for retaliation, and one for violations of public policy. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion, ruling against the plaintiff.

Facts of the Case

As an employee of FlashCo, the plaintiff was hired in 2010 as a production worker. In March 2016, the plaintiff was then hired as a plant manager. During the trial, the plaintiff’s former supervisor testified that the plaintiff was “over his head” in the plant manager role, stating that he never developed into a competent plant manager. According to further testimony from the trial, the plaintiff’s supervisors stated that in 2016 and 2017, the plant managed by the plaintiff was not reaching production levels expected of a plant of that level. In February 2018, the plaintiff experienced neck and back injuries in an outside automobile accident. By April 2018, the plaintiff was advised that “the sales team was concerned about [his] plant performance” and around that time, he was sent a performance improvement plan (PIP). The plaintiff felt that the PIP set unrealistic expectations. Later that day, the plaintiff had a discussion with his manager and was given three options, (1) abide by the PIP, (2) accept a demotion to operations supervisor, or (3) voluntarily resign and receive a $10,000 payment from the company.

The plaintiff resigned and accepted the payment several days later. In March 2020, the plaintiff commenced his action by filing a complaint against the defendant, setting forth nine total causes of action, with six addressing violations of the FEHA, two addressing violations of the CFRA, one for interference, one for retaliation, and one addressing violations of public policy. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims on a motion for summary judgment from the defendant.