MyKhanh Shelton, Esq.

• An employee requested to continue working remotely due to medical issues that he attributed to COVID-related health conditions. At the time, the employer was requiring employees to return to the office following the end of pandemic-related remote work arrangements. The employer granted the employee’s request and allowed him to continue working remotely as an accommodation. Several months later, the employer implemented a workforce reduction in response to economic conditions, and the employee’s position was eliminated along with those of other employees. The employee subsequently asserted claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination, alleging that his medical condition and accommodation request contributed to the layoff decision. The employer denied the allegations, maintaining that it had accommodated the employee’s request for remote work and that the layoff was part of a broader reduction in force driven by legitimate business considerations. The employer further contended that the termination decision was unrelated to the employee’s medical condition or accommodation.
• Settled employment cases involving disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation, the interactive process, medical leave, FMLA, CFRA, and related workplace claims.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and wrongful termination. A recently hired employee disclosed a medical condition to Human Resources and experienced health-related issues and absences during her introductory period. The employer subsequently ended her employment, citing attendance and performance concerns. The employee alleged that her medical condition and related disclosures contributed to the decision and asserted FEHA claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and failure to prevent discrimination and harassment. The employer disputed the claims and maintained that the decision was based on legitimate attendance and performance considerations.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, FMLA and CFRA leave, failure to accommodate, the interactive process, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination. A former employee of a nonprofit organization alleged that she was terminated after returning from FMLA/CFRA leave without the employer adequately engaging in the interactive process or considering additional leave as a reasonable accommodation. She asserted claims for disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate, retaliation, Labor Code § 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination. The nonprofit denied the allegations and maintained that its actions were lawful and based on legitimate operational considerations.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, the interactive process, race discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. A long-term hospital employee was terminated for alleged policy violations. The employee contended that the conduct leading to termination was caused by a disability and medication-related side effects and that the circumstances should have triggered the interactive process and consideration of accommodation. The employee also alleged race discrimination and retaliation. The hospital denied the claims and maintained that the termination was based on legitimate policy violations.

• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, workers’ compensation retaliation, failure to accommodate, and wrongful termination. A senior employee at a technology company sought medical treatment for health conditions attributed to workplace stress and subsequently requested leave and workplace accommodations. The employee alleged that these circumstances contributed to the end of the employment relationship. The employer maintained that the employee resigned following performance-related feedback and denied any unlawful conduct.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, age discrimination, failure to accommodate, the interactive process, and wrongful termination. A long-tenured employee returned to work following a medical leave of absence. The employer determined that the employee was unable to perform the essential functions of the position, with or without accommodation, and ended the employment relationship. The employee alleged disability and age discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination. The employer disputed the claims and maintained that the employment decision was based on the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the position.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, mental health issues, failure to accommodate, and the interactive process. An employee disclosed a medical condition and subsequently experienced health-related difficulties that affected workplace communications and employment. The employer later ended the employment relationship. The employee alleged that the employer’s response to her medical condition and related circumstances violated disability discrimination and accommodation laws. The employer disputed the claims and maintained that the employment decision was based on legitimate workplace considerations.
• Settled a case involving age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. A retail store manager alleged age and disability discrimination and retaliation. The employer maintained that she had violated company policies and was terminated only after receiving multiple written warnings. The matter also involved procedural disputes concerning arbitration and court proceedings before ultimately resolving through settlement.
• Settled a case involving age discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, the interactive process, retaliation, and wrongful termination. A production employee alleged that age and disability discrimination contributed to the termination of his employment and that the employer failed to appropriately address disability-related accommodation issues. He also alleged retaliation related to his disability and requests for accommodation. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the employment decision was based on legitimate business considerations.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, disability harassment, failure to accommodate, and wage and hour claims. A driver was terminated following alleged workplace policy violations and subsequently asserted claims for disability discrimination, disability harassment, and failure to accommodate. The employee also asserted wage and hour claims arising from the employment relationship. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the termination and workplace practices were lawful.
• Settled a case involving age discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, the interactive process, and wrongful termination during medical leave. An employee in the utilities industry was on medical leave when a private company acquired the operations and implemented related workforce changes. The employee’s position was eliminated as part of the transition. The employee alleged that the termination was affected by age and disability discrimination and that the employer failed to adequately consider accommodation or engage in the interactive process. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the employment decision resulted from legitimate operational changes associated with the transition.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, remote-work accommodation, retaliation, and wrongful termination. An employee with medical conditions requested continued remote work after the employer ended pandemic-era work-from-home policies and required employees to return to the workplace. The employer granted the request as an accommodation. The employee was later laid off as part of a broader economic downturn and asserted claims relating to disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. The employer disputed the claims and maintained that it had accommodated the employee’s remote-work request and that the layoff was part of a broader, economically driven reduction in force unrelated to the employee’s medical condition, accommodation, or protected activity.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, workplace injury, and wrongful termination. A long-term employee alleged that a workplace injury resulted in a disability and that the employer failed to adequately consider reasonable accommodations or engage in the interactive process before making decisions affecting the employee’s employment. The employee contended that the employment decision was related to the injury and resulting limitations. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that its actions were based on legitimate business considerations rather than disability or protected activity. The case also presented significant emotional dynamics arising from the employee’s long-standing relationship with the business owner, who had viewed the employee as part of the company’s extended family.
• Settled a case involving race discrimination, disability accommodation, retaliation, and wrongful termination. An accounting clerk was terminated during medical leave and asserted claims involving race discrimination, disability accommodation, and retaliation. The matter required evaluation of overlapping liability issues and a pragmatic assessment of potential exposure at various stages of litigation. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the employment decision was based on legitimate business considerations and was unrelated to race, disability, or protected activity.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and wrongful termination. An employee of a transportation company alleged discrimination after being denied a promotion and later terminated for a safety policy violation. The employee asserted disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims, contending that disability-related circumstances played a role in the employment decisions. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the promotion and termination decisions were based on legitimate business and safety considerations unrelated to disability or protected activity.

view all

• An employee alleged that after a change in management, she was subjected to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on her sexual orientation, national origin, and accent. The employee, who identified as a lesbian, contended that her manager made comments about improving her appearance, criticized the way she spoke because of her accent, and engaged in conduct that she characterized as discriminatory and xenophobic. She reported her concerns to the employer, which conducted an internal investigation. Several months later, the employee's employment was terminated. She asserted claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination, alleging that her protected characteristics and workplace complaints motivated the decision. The employer denied the allegations, maintaining that it promptly investigated the employee's complaints and that the termination resulted from documented performance deficiencies unrelated to her sexual orientation, national origin, accent, or protected activity.
• Settled employment cases involving race, gender, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, and other discrimination claims under California employment law.
• Settled a case involving gender discrimination, pay disparity allegations, retaliation, and wrongful termination. An employee of a nonprofit organization raised concerns about alleged gender-based pay disparities, with male colleagues supporting concerns raised by female employees. The organization conducted an internal audit and concluded that no unlawful pay disparity existed. Shortly thereafter, as part of a reorganization, the employee’s position was eliminated. The employee alleged that the restructuring decision was retaliatory and motivated by gender discrimination. The nonprofit maintained that the position elimination resulted from legitimate operational considerations.
• Settled a case involving race and national origin discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour claims. An employee of a healthcare provider and its professional employer organization alleged discrimination based on his ethnicity and retaliation. He also alleged that the employer failed to adequately respond to his complaints and asserted wage and hour claims involving off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime, and uncompensated work performed on days off. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that its employment decisions and workplace practices were not based on race or national origin and that compensation practices complied with applicable wage and hour requirements.
• Settled a case involving race discrimination, retaliation, failure to promote, and wrongful termination. A law enforcement employee alleged that he was denied promotional opportunities because of his race and in retaliation for previously raising concerns about racial discrimination in the promotion process. He contended that the employment decisions were influenced by his prior complaints and asserted related retaliation and discrimination claims. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that promotion and other employment decisions were based on legitimate qualifications, performance, and departmental considerations unrelated to race or protected activity.

• Settled a case involving race discrimination and wrongful demotion. A Black production employee alleged that his demotion was motivated by race discrimination and that subjective evaluations of his work contributed to the employment decision. The employee contended that the stated reasons for the demotion were pretextual and that race played a role in the decision. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the employment decision was based on legitimate assessments of performance and other business considerations. The case also involved broader industry issues concerning the role of subjective creative evaluations in employment decisions.
• Settled a case involving race discrimination, wrongful termination, and allegations arising from a change in management. Multiple former employees of a medical organization alleged that new management disproportionately terminated Black employees and replaced them with Hispanic employees. The employer denied the allegations and maintained that staffing decisions were based on legitimate business and performance considerations.
• Settled a case involving race discrimination and wrongful termination. A Black security guard alleged that his employer assigned him to isolated and potentially dangerous work locations and repeatedly changed his schedule because of racial bias. He contended that these staffing and scheduling decisions were discriminatory and ultimately contributed to the termination of his employment. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that staffing, scheduling, and employment decisions were based on legitimate business, operational, and performance considerations unrelated to race.
• Settled a case involving discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. A transgender employee brought employment discrimination claims against an organization. The employee alleged that the organization’s treatment of her was inconsistent with its stated mission and asserted discrimination and related employment claims. The organization disputed the allegations and maintained that its employment decisions were based on legitimate organizational and performance considerations and were consistent with its legal obligations.
• Settled a case involving transgender discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination in the hospitality industry. A transgender woman alleged that she experienced discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her employment with a hospitality business. She contended that her gender identity played a role in the treatment she received and the employment decisions at issue. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that its conduct and employment decisions were not based on gender identity or protected activity.
• Settled a case involving age discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination. A long-term municipal employee alleged that her layoff was motivated by age discrimination and retaliation after she raised concerns about approving permits that she believed did not comply with applicable regulations. She contended that her complaints constituted protected activity and that the subsequent employment decision was retaliatory. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the layoff resulted from legitimate operational considerations and was unrelated to the employee’s age or any protected activity.

view all

• Settled employment disputes involving employment agreements, compensation plans, commissions, bonuses, employment offers, promissory estoppel, and related contractual claims.
• Settled a case involving breach of contract, sales commissions, bonus compensation, and retaliation claims. A sales manager alleged that her employer breached a compensation agreement governing commissions and bonuses and failed to pay compensation owed under the agreement. She further contended that she was terminated after raising concerns about unpaid wages and asserted retaliation claims. The employer denied the alleged breach, disputed the interpretation of the compensation agreement and the amounts claimed, and maintained that complaints regarding commissions and bonuses did not constitute protected whistleblower activity. The employer also maintained that the termination decision was based on legitimate business reasons.
• Settled a case involving a rescinded employment offer, employment contract claims, and reliance on hiring representations. A prospective employee alleged that she relied on an offer of employment, resigned from her existing position, and was unable to return to her prior job after the prospective employer revoked the offer. She claimed that the employer’s hiring representations created an enforceable commitment and sought damages arising from the loss of her prior employment. The employer maintained that the job offer was expressly conditional and did not constitute a clear or unconditional commitment to employment.

• Settled employment disputes involving executives, managers, professionals, and other high-level employees, including compensation, performance, separation, and workplace claims.
• Settled a case involving executive employment, breach of contract, and hiring-related claims. An executive alleged that representations made during the recruitment process created enforceable commitments regarding a prospective position that was ultimately not created. The executive contended that he relied on those representations to his detriment. The employer disputed the claims and maintained that the recruitment discussions and proposed position were subject to conditions and did not create an unconditional employment commitment.
• Settled a case involving executive disability discrimination, workers’ compensation retaliation, and wrongful termination. A senior sales executive at a technology company alleged that his medical condition, treatment, and requests for leave or accommodation contributed to the end of his employment. The employer maintained that he resigned following negative performance feedback.
• Settled a case involving an executive’s claims of race and gender discrimination, retaliation, and medical leave. An executive alleged that race and gender played a role in workplace treatment and that she experienced retaliation after raising concerns. The dispute also involved a subsequent medical leave and the employer’s response to the employee’s complaints. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that it investigated the concerns, responded appropriately, and treated the employee consistently with similarly situated employees.
• Settled a case involving a media executive’s medical leave, layoff, and disability discrimination claims. A media executive was the only employee selected for layoff during a company reorganization shortly after returning from medical leave. They alleged that the timing and circumstances of the layoff were connected to their medical condition and leave and asserted disability discrimination and related claims. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the position was eliminated as part of a legitimate business reorganization and that the decision was unrelated to the employee’s medical condition, leave, or any protected activity.

• Settled a case involving sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. A female executive alleged that she became the subject of workplace rumors of a sexual nature and reported the conduct to Human Resources. She contended that the employer failed to conduct an adequate investigation and that her supervisor subsequently retaliated by changing the manner in which workplace policies and executive benefits were applied to her, issuing an unfavorable performance review, and creating conditions that led to her resignation. The employer denied the allegations, maintaining that it took appropriate steps in response to her complaint and that she did not suffer an adverse employment action.
• Settled a case involving whistleblower retaliation, age and race discrimination, disability discrimination, and wrongful termination. An executive alleged that she reported suspected unlawful conduct by a nonprofit organization’s leadership to its board and subsequently experienced adverse treatment that she contended was retaliatory and discriminatory. She asserted claims based on whistleblower activity, age, race, and disability. The organization disputed the allegations and maintained that its employment decisions were based on legitimate business and performance considerations unrelated to the employee’s protected characteristics or complaints. The matter also involved significant differences in the parties’ perspectives regarding the underlying events and their ongoing professional relationship.
• Settled a case involving sexual orientation harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. A successful sales executive at a luxury goods retailer alleged that she was subjected to harassment based on her sexual orientation and that she and her female partner, a non-employee, experienced inappropriate conduct by coworkers and a manager at social gatherings outside the office. The employer denied misconduct and maintained that the gatherings were social events initiated by the claimant, who invited and participated with her manager and coworker, and that no unwelcome conduct occurred.
• Settled a case involving breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from alleged employment commitments made during recruitment. An executive alleged that verbal assurances made during the hiring process created enforceable obligations when the anticipated position was ultimately never created. The defense disputed the existence of any enforceable contractual commitment and maintained that the circumstances surrounding the recruitment process did not support the asserted claims.

view all

• Settled employment cases involving workplace harassment, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and harassment based on protected characteristics.
• Settled a case involving sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation in a pre-litigation dispute. A former employee alleged sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct described as grooming, contending that the conduct created a hostile work environment. The employer denied all allegations and maintained that no harassment or improper conduct occurred.
• Settled a case involving workplace harassment, disability discrimination, the interactive process, and wrongful termination. A caregiver at a senior living facility alleged that she experienced workplace harassment after reporting inappropriate conduct involving coworkers and a supervisor. She also asserted that her disability and requests for workplace support contributed to adverse employment decisions and alleged failure to engage in the interactive process. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that it responded appropriately to workplace concerns and that any employment decisions were based on legitimate business considerations unrelated to disability or protected activity.
• Settled a case involving race and sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. A long-term electrical technician alleged that coworkers and others in the workplace made inappropriate, unwelcome, racially charged, sexually charged, hostile, and demeaning comments toward him. The employer disputed the allegations.
• Settled a case involving sexual harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. A nurse alleged that she was subjected to inappropriate workplace conduct and that she was forced to resign after reporting the alleged behavior. She asserted claims arising from the alleged harassment, retaliation, and circumstances surrounding her departure. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the conduct did not constitute unlawful harassment or retaliation and that the employee’s resignation was not the result of unlawful workplace conduct.

• Settled a case involving workplace harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and competing employee complaints. An employee alleged that coworkers harassed her and that she reported the conduct to Human Resources without receiving an adequate investigation. After confronting the coworkers, they filed complaints against her. She contended that Human Resources investigated the complaints against her but not hers and that she was ultimately terminated in retaliation. The employer maintained that it promptly and thoroughly investigated all complaints, that the employee’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and that the complaints against her were substantiated and provided legitimate grounds for termination.
• Settled a case involving sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. A domestic worker alleged multiple employment law violations, including unpaid wages, harassment, retaliation, physical assault, and emotional distress. The matter involved sensitive interpersonal, cultural, and socioeconomic dynamics in addition to the underlying employment claims.
• Settled a case involving sexual harassment and disputed workplace conduct. An employee brought sexual harassment claims against a cannabis company based on allegations of unwanted physical contact between coworkers. The employee characterized the contact as unwelcome, while the employer presented a substantially different account of the interactions and maintained that the conduct was consensual.
• Settled a case involving harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination based on sexual orientation and national origin. An employee in the hospitality industry alleged that a new manager harassed and discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation and national origin, including comments concerning her appearance and accent. She reported her concerns to the company, which conducted an investigation. Months later, the employee was terminated for alleged performance deficiencies. She contended that the termination was retaliatory and discriminatory. The company maintained that the performance issues were objective, well documented, and unrelated to any protected characteristic or complaint.

view all

• Settled wage and hour cases involving unpaid wages, meal and rest breaks, employee classification, exempt status, commissions, bonuses, and related California labor claims.
• Settled a case involving wage and hour violations, meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, and wage statement claims. Employees brought claims against a restaurant alleging violations involving meal periods, rest breaks, unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, and wage statement compliance. The employer disputed the claims and raised issues concerning scheduling practices, timekeeping, and compliance with applicable labor laws.
• Settled a wage and hour class action and PAGA representative action involving meal and rest breaks, overtime, minimum wages, wage statements, business expenses, and waiting time penalties. Employees of a service-based business alleged multiple wage and hour violations. The case involved competing interpretations of incomplete time and payroll records, reliance on sampling and extrapolation, and sharply divergent views of potential exposure based on statutory maximums versus likely judicial outcomes, including discretionary PAGA and wage statement penalties.
• Settled a case involving wage and hour claims brought by producers working on an unscripted reality television series. The producers alleged that they worked significant hours without receiving all overtime compensation due and that their demanding production schedules resulted in missed or interrupted meal and rest periods. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that the producers were properly classified and compensated and that its timekeeping and break practices complied with applicable wage and hour requirements.
• Settled a case involving independent contractor misclassification, wage and hour claims, damages, and collectability. Two individuals alleged that they had been misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees and asserted related wage and hour claims. The defendant denied misclassification and disputed liability and damages.

• Settled a case involving wage and hour retaliation, whistleblower allegations, and competing accounts of the reasons for termination. An employee alleged that he was terminated after reporting labor law violations, while the employer maintained that the termination resulted from inappropriate workplace conduct. The parties presented sharply conflicting accounts of the events leading to the termination, creating significant emotional and valuation challenges.
• Settled a case involving wage and hour claims, wrongful termination, and retaliation arising from complaints concerning workplace practices. An employee alleged that he was terminated after raising concerns about improper financial and accounting practices and also claimed that he routinely worked through meal and rest breaks, ate at his desk, and was not provided compliant breaks. The employer denied the allegations and maintained that the employee was terminated for workplace misconduct involving threats of violence.

view all

• Three former employees brought separate but related actions alleging whistleblower retaliation and constructive discharge after raising concerns about workplace health and safety practices. Each employee contended that they engaged in protected activity by reporting unsafe working conditions and ultimately resigned because the employer failed to adequately address the alleged risks, leaving them no reasonable alternative but to leave their employment. The employer denied the allegations, maintaining that it responded appropriately to employee concerns, complied with applicable health and safety requirements, and disputed that any employee had been subjected to retaliation or constructively discharged.
• Settled employment cases involving whistleblower retaliation, retaliation for workplace complaints, protected activity, and retaliation under California employment laws, including Labor Code § 1102.5 and FEHA.
• Settled a case involving whistleblower retaliation, FEHA retaliation, and wrongful termination in an educational setting. A school administrator alleged that she engaged in protected activity by raising concerns about admissions and financial aid practices and was subsequently subjected to disciplinary action, demotion, and termination. The school denied the allegations, maintained that it investigated the complaints and found no wrongdoing, and asserted that well-documented performance problems led to a performance improvement plan and ultimately to termination.
• Settled a case involving whistleblower retaliation, workplace safety concerns, and wrongful termination. An employee of a pharmaceutical company alleged that he was exposed to unsafe working conditions and was retaliated against after reporting health and safety concerns. The company denied the allegations, maintained that it took safety concerns seriously and complied with hazardous waste regulations and applicable safety standards, and asserted that the employee was terminated for violating company policies. The company further contended that the unsafe conditions identified by the employee resulted from his own actions and failure to follow health and safety requirements.
• Settled a case involving whistleblower retaliation, workplace safety complaints, and wrongful termination. An employee of a transportation company reported alleged racist and harassing conduct by a supervisor and later alleged that the employer retaliated against him after he complained. Following an internal investigation, the supervisor was transferred to another facility. The employee contended that the remedial action was inadequate and that the harassment continued before his eventual termination for cause. He asserted FEHA retaliation, Labor Code § 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination claims. The employer maintained that it investigated the complaints, took appropriate remedial action, and that the termination was unrelated to the employee’s complaints.

• Settled three related cases involving whistleblower retaliation and constructive discharge based on workplace health and safety concerns. Three employees separately alleged that they engaged in protected whistleblowing by reporting health and safety concerns and ultimately resigned because of the risks they believed remained in the workplace. The employer disputed the allegations and maintained that it appropriately addressed safety concerns and that the employees had not been constructively discharged.
• Settled a case involving whistleblower retaliation and constructive discharge arising from alleged consumer fraud. A plumber alleged that he was pressured to participate in fraudulent conduct involving consumers and resigned as a result. The matter involved significant differences in the parties’ valuation of the claims, which were addressed through structured bracketing during the mediation.
• Settled a case involving gender pay disparity complaints, retaliation, and wrongful termination. An employee of a nonprofit organization raised concerns about alleged gender-based pay disparities, supported by male colleagues. After the organization conducted an internal audit and concluded that no unlawful pay disparity existed, the employee’s position was eliminated during a subsequent reorganization. The employee alleged that the restructuring decision was retaliatory and related to the prior pay equity complaints. The nonprofit maintained that the reorganization was based on legitimate operational considerations.

view all

• Settled employment cases involving wrongful termination, constructive discharge, layoffs, reductions in force, resignations, and disputes concerning the circumstances of an employee’s separation.
• Settled a case involving wrongful termination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and medical leave. An employee was furloughed during a business downturn and later took medical leave. While the employee remained on furlough and leave, the employer conducted a further reduction in force that resulted in termination. The employee alleged that the termination was connected to his disability and medical leave, while the employer maintained that the layoff was part of a broader economic restructuring.
• Settled a case involving wrongful termination, disability discrimination, and retaliation following a performance improvement plan. An employee who had been placed on a performance improvement plan was terminated for alleged poor performance. The employee contended that the stated performance rationale was pretextual and that the termination was actually retaliatory for taking a medical leave of absence and complaining about harassment and discrimination related to her medical condition and leave status. The employer maintained that the performance concerns were documented, predated the leave, and provided legitimate grounds for termination.
• Settled a case involving wrongful termination, disability discrimination, and leave eligibility. An employee who sustained an injury requested a leave of absence but did not meet the minimum tenure requirements for statutory leave protection. The employee was subsequently terminated and alleged disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination. The employer maintained that the requested leave was indefinite and would impose an undue burden on business operations and that the termination was based on legitimate operational considerations.
• Settled a case involving disability discrimination, medical leave, retaliation, and wrongful termination. An employee took leave for a medical procedure, and the employer questioned whether the leave qualified for statutory protection because the procedure was elective. The parties disputed what medical information was necessary to evaluate the leave and whether the employee had provided sufficient documentation. The employee alleged violations of FMLA, CFRA, FEHA, and medical privacy protections, as well as retaliation after raising those concerns. The employer maintained that it requested appropriate information, deemed the documentation insufficient, and terminated the employee for policy violations.

• Settled a case involving wrongful termination, harassment, retaliation, and competing workplace complaints. An employee alleged that she was subjected to harassment by coworkers, reported the conduct to Human Resources, and did not receive an adequate investigation. After confronting the coworkers, they filed complaints against her. She contended that the employer investigated their complaints but not hers and ultimately terminated her in retaliation. The employer maintained that all complaints were promptly and thoroughly investigated, that the employee’s allegations were unsubstantiated, and that the complaints against her were substantiated and supported termination.
• Settled a case involving wrongful termination, retaliation, and wage and hour claims. An employee alleged that he was terminated after complaining about improper accounting and financial practices and asserted that he routinely worked through meal and rest breaks. The employer maintained that the employee was terminated for workplace threats of violence and disputed the wage and hour allegations.
• Settled a case involving wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation, and workplace safety concerns. An employee alleged that he was terminated after reporting unsafe working conditions. The employer maintained that it took safety concerns seriously, complied with applicable safety requirements, and terminated the employee for violating company policy rather than for engaging in protected activity.
• Settled a case involving wrongful termination and a revoked employment offer. A prospective employee alleged that she resigned from her prior position in reliance on an employment offer that was subsequently revoked, leaving her unable to return to her former job. She asserted promissory estoppel and Business and Professions Code § 17200 claims. The employer maintained that the offer was conditional and did not constitute a clear and unambiguous promise of employment.
• Settled a case involving wrongful termination, disability discrimination, medical leave, and FEHA and CFRA claims. An employee reported stress, anxiety, a sleep disorder, and other health issues following a home burglary. Time away from work initially overlapped with pre-approved vacation and then continued for a period the employee claimed was protected under FMLA, CFRA, and FEHA. The employee alleged that the employer had sufficient notice to trigger leave and accommodation obligations and asserted disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate, CFRA violations, and wrongful termination. The employer disputed that it had received sufficient notice to trigger statutory protections and maintained that the termination was lawful.

view all