Mistreated Employee Lawsuits Find a Favorable Climate in California

mistreated employee lawsuitsIt appears that the current California legal climate is favorable for pursuing mistreated employee lawsuits. If a potential, current, or previous employer has discriminated against or otherwise mistreated you in California, you are in a good position to exact revenge if you so desire. That is because California is well known to be amenable to rectifying the wrongdoing of errant employers Certainly, many factors play in to California’s protective attitude toward wronged employees. The #MeToo movement brought issues related to sexual harassment and retaliation to the forefront of public discussion. Even before #MeToo hit the public airways, though, California legislators were paving the way to an even playing field for anyone involved in a workplace dispute. In fact, the American Tort Reform Foundation went so far as to say that California courts go out of their way to assign responsibility to companies in employer liability lawsuits by allowing for no-injury litigation through PAGA lawsuits, making California the most employee-friendly state in the nation.

What is PAGA?

We’ve blogged about PAGA before. PAGA, or the Private Attorneys General Act, gives employees the right to sue their employers civilly for violations of the Labor Code. The process requires a submission of the complaint to LWDA (Labor and Workforce Development Agency) with the potential for an investigation of the matter. Aggrieved employees wishing to pursue civil action are authorized to do so through Labor Code 2698-2699. Some of the requirements for such legal action include:

  • Online filing with a copy of the complaint sent to the employer via certified mail;
  • Employer responses also filed online, with copies sent to the employee vie4a certified mail;
  • Paying required filing fees;
  • Waiting up to 60 days for a LWDA review;
  • Court approval of settlements, with copies of all judgments provided to LWDA.

Mistreated Employee Lawsuits – Successful Court Cases

Mistreated employee lawsuits have found juries to be sympathetic to their plight in recent years:

  • When Allstate Insurance fired a 30-year employee based on his arrest record, that employee fought back in court, ultimately being awarded nearly $3 million in compensation. While roughly one-third of the award was for wrongful termination, the rest was for defamation. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. The jury added another $16 million to the award in punitive damages, sending a clear message to the employer that wrongful termination will not be tolerated.
  • When two employees asserted that they had suffered sexual harassment from the general manager of Keyways Vineyard and Winery, things did not end there. After registering their complaint, the women experienced retaliation in the form of being removed from the weekly schedule. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $11 million.

[Read more…]

Wrongfully Terminated in California

wrongfully terminatedWhen the Director of Facilities for a Napa Valley resort executed the duties required by his job, he claims he was wrongfully terminated. Instead of rolling over and accepting his fate, Daniel Philbin took the case to court. The property owner, Carneros, sees things quite differently from the story Philbin tells.  As with most employment disputes, only with the help of an experienced local attorney will the plaintiff be able to successfully present a case.

Wrongful Termination and Job Expectations

Being in charge of the resort facilities encompassed many responsibilities, among them three key duties;

  • Ensuring the facility met ADA compliance regulations for disabled guests;
  • Reporting resort water usage;
  • Procuring necessary permits.

According to Philbin, his attempts to execute these obligations met with dissatisfaction from his employers, and resulted in his untimely termination. Specifically, he contends that when new owners took over the property and began renovations, they declined to install the ADA required ramps and lifts in the patio and spa areas. Additionally, Philbin asserts that when management sought to drill a new well on the property, they neglected to apply for the permits to enable water and electrical connections, despite Philbin repeatedly urging them to do so.

Instead of the new owners appreciating Philbin’s knowledge and expertise as a property manager, they ignored his overtures to follow legal procedures, and started holding meetings without him. Ultimately, he found himself without a job.

Wrongfully Terminated – The Other Side of the Story

Not true, claims the resort. As far as the ADA concerns, those were addressed immediately upon discovering there were issues. Yes, water issues were problematic, but the resort was fully cooperating with the County on that matter.  

In fact, the new owners were so intent on handling the water issues properly that they ultimately hired an outside contractor to handle it exclusively. Philbin was presented with an offer to deal with other property issues for a monthly salary. Instead, according to Carneros, Philbin lost his cool in a tense meeting and resigned. The company accepted the resignation immediately.  

Wrongfully Terminated? The Court Must Decide

Philbin says he received a letter from Carneros accepting his resignation, even though he never resigned. He is now seeking damages, attorney’s fees, and associated court costs. California’s Labor Code section 1102.5 provides strong protections for employees who are fired because they fail to join in unlawful activity. Was Philbin cut out because he insisted on proper procedures?  Did Carneros exact retribution? Was Philbin wrongfully terminated? The court will now have to decide. [Read more…]

Wrongful Termination Complaint Thomsen v. Georgia-Pacific

Wrongful Termination ComplaintWrongful termination complaint Thomsen v. Georgia-Pacific Corrugated, LLC. How far must an employer go to accommodate a worker’s disability? Jan Thomsen worked at a corrugated container plant in Madeira, California for approximately 23 years. He sustained a shoulder injury on the job in 2012 and returned to work in 2013 after undergoing surgery. He informed his employer, Georgia-Pacific Corrugated, LLC, that he was now unable to perform the responsibilities of his previous position as a cut and die operator. He also provided verification from his doctor that his condition prevented him from performing certain responsibilities such as carrying anything that weighs more than 30 pounds.

Thomsen was then assigned a position as an assistant end gluer, which he believed would be a good match for his capabilities. However, after performing the job, Thomsen told his employer that the duties of the new position would need to be modified to accommodate his disability. He was told by an HR employee to return to his doctor, to determine whether additional restrictions were necessary.

Thomsen did not return to his doctor. He was fired shortly afterward, for refusing to work an overtime shift. Thomsen then filed a wrongful termination complaint against Georgia-Pacific. One of his claims was that his employer violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by failing to provide reasonable accommodation for his disability. At trial, Georgia-Pacific moved to dismiss this claim.

Many employers would look at these facts and conclude that Georgia-Pacific clearly had the law on its side. After all, when Thomsen was unable to perform his old job due to his injuries, Georgia-Pacific assigned him a new one – one that Thomsen agreed was within his capabilities. And when Thomsen asserted that he was unable to perform his new job, Georgia-Pacific’s response was to ask for documentation, rather than firing or suspending him.

But according to a federal court, it is not that simple. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected Georgia-Pacific’s motion to dismiss Thomsen’s claim that Georgia-Pacific failed to accommodate his disability. The court found that a reasonable jury could find that Georgia-Pacific was obligated to engage with Thomsen to assess whether modifications to the position were possible.

Wrongful Termination Complaint – An “Interactive Process”

In reaching its conclusion, the court pointed to two particular allegations of Thomsen’s wrongful termination complaint.

  • Thomsen’s wrongful termination complaint alleged that his new position required him, at times, to lift more than 30 pounds – which his doctor had already confirmed was too much for him to handle.
  • Thomsen’s wrongful termination complaint also alleged that a machine operator he worked with refused to accommodate his needs, and kept the machine running even when it was backed up.

Under FEHA, an employer must “engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any” after an employee requests reasonable accommodations due to a disability or known mental condition. The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that after Thomsen expressed concerns about the requirements of his new position, Georgia-Pacific was obligated to engage in a dialogue with him before deciding that he must return to his doctor. [Read more…]

Disclaimer

The information on this website should not be considered to be legal advice, nor construed to be the formation of any manner of attorney client relationship. Prior to taking any form of legal action, please consult with an attorney experienced in the appropriate area of law germane to your situation. Case results and testimonials presented on www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net or any of its related websites are germane to the facts present for each individual case and is not a promise of similar outcomes for any other cases. This website is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the State of California.