Employment

Plaintiff sued her employer and three corporate individuals (CEO and board members) for wrongful termination, breach of contract, fraud based on misrepresentations, and tortious interference with a contract. Issues were whether there was a constructive discharge due to intolerable working conditions, denial of meaningful opportunity to do the job, and forced resignation.

Plaintiff mechanic, sued his employer after being terminated for a positive drug test. Question raised was whether the employer breached covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to provide a retest of his urine sample or by failing to consider plaintiff's explanation of the test results.

Before a corporate merger was approved, plaintiff's employment with one of the corporations was terminated. Plaintiff tried unsuccessfully to exercise some of the unvested stock options and sued the corporation for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, interference with contract, etc.. Issue was whether an acceleration provision that would allow some of his unvested stock to vest.

Plaintiff company sued its former employee after she left the company’s employ and independently contracted to provide services to the company's client that she had previously provided services to on behalf of the company. Company alleged breach of the duty of loyalty, interference with contract and fraud and sought a constructive trust. The former employee cross-complained for declaratory relief invalidating a noncompetition clause and damages for unfair competition.

Plaintiff sued her former employers and former supervisors for defamation and for creating a sexually hostile work environment by acts of gender discrimination and sexual harassment.

Plaintiff after receiving a demotion, sued his employer for age discrimination under the Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) Issues were whether the employer's reasons for demotion were untrue or pretextual, or whether the employer acted with discriminatory motive.

Plaintiff sued her former employer/company and its then-parent company for retaliation for her complaints to management and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Issues concerned admissibility of lay opinion regarding the quality of her writing, admission of co-worker letters, and damages instructions.

Plaintiff sued defendant/computer company for employment discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). Issue was whether FEHA requires an employer to engage in an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability when the employer has already decided to discharge the employee for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.

Plaintiff claimed discrimination and verbal harassment based on a perceived disability in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900, et seq. Issues concerned expert witness fees and attorney's fees.

School employee and her labor union filed a mandate petition where they argued that a classified employee of a non-merit-system school district who attains permanent status and then is laid off from her position and thereafter reemployed by the district in a different, lower position retains her permanent status and may not be required to serve a probationary period in the new position. Issue was whether the statutory scheme supports that contention or whether such an employee’s permanent status is restricted to the position or class in which it was attained and is not retained when the employee is reemployed in a different, lower position.

Two employees sought a writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) to compel their former employer to reinstate them as executive assistants to the employer's president or alternatively, to conduct hearings on the propriety of their “demotions, involuntary transfers, and terminations.” Issue was whether their temporary reassignments were "demotions" and whether their eventual separations from employment were terminations "for cause," under the xxx Code.

After her employment was terminated, plaintiff sued brought an action against defendants for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940) (FEHA), wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, breach of employment agreement, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Issues included age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Plaintiff was terminated from employment by a corporation. He brought an action for retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), retaliation in violation of public policy, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to investigate, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages alleging sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual battery, failure to prevent harassment, and negligent supervision and retention. She later added a claim that she was forced to resign in retaliation for her lawsuit. Question was whether defendant waived its right to arbitration and whether there was an enforceable arbitration agreement.

Plaintiff brought a wrongful termination action against defendant corporation based on allegations of racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Issue was whether the corporation was estopped from presenting evidence of its nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions.