Retaliation and Wrongful Termination

Subscribe to Retaliation and Wrongful Termination via RSS

On May 5, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an Opinion, to be published, in the case titled Porter v. Winter (9th Cir. 07-171250).  Attorney Charles L. Post prepared and submitted the briefs and attorney Lizbeth V. West appeared and argued before the Ninth Circuit on behalf of Appellant, Ronald Porter.
Continue Reading Weintraub Lawyers Win Appeal Before the Ninth Circuit re: Title VII Sex Discrimination and Retaliation/Subject Matter Jurisdiction re Attorneys’ Fees

In the recent case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must prove that his/her age was the “but for” cause of the adverse employment action they claim was discriminatory (e.g. demotion). Plaintiff was 54 years old when his employer reassigned him from his position as a claims administration director to a claims project coordinator. Many of his responsibilities in the director position were transferred to one of his subordinates who was in her early 40’s. Although Plaintiff’s compensation was not reduced, he believed that his transfer to the coordinator position was a demotion and filed an age discrimination claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Continue Reading AGE MUST BE THE “BUT FOR” CAUSE FOR ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

In his first significant act as President in the labor and employment arena, President Obama effectively overturned the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. by signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (“Ledbetter Act”) into law this Thursday. The main thrust of the Ledbetter Act is that it…

In 2002, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (Metro), began looking into rumors of sexual harassment by one of its employees, Gene Hughes. A member of Metro’s human resources department asked plaintiff Vicky Crawford (a 30-year Metro employee) whether she had witnessed any of Hughes’ “inappropriate behavior.” Crawford, who was not the subject…

The California Supreme Court in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership ruled that individuals may not be held personally liable for retaliation claims under the FEHA.

If you read the FEHA, section 12940(h) makes it unlawful for any “employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person” to retaliate against an employee. Read literally, this would appear to impose individual liability on a “person” who retaliates. California intermediate appellate courts have wrestled with the issue for years. However, in a decision split 4 to 3 among the justices, the California Supreme Court has finally decided the matter.

As outlet manager, Jones was responsible for the restaurant, bar, catering and banquet events, and the beverage cart service to golfers on the golf course. In October 2000, The Lodge hired a new beverage director, Jean Weiss. That is when the alleged problems began. Weiss and the kitchen manager developed a habit of telling jokes and making sexual remarks about women and employees known as “cart girls.” They also made fun of Jones’ sexual orientation. Jones complained about this treatment. Jones alleged that Weiss became hostile and threatened to fire Jones if he reported the matter to human resources. Jones did complaint to the HR manager and Weiss subsequently retaliated by writing him up for a laundry list of performance problems. Finally, Jones filed a DFEH complaint, resigned, and sued for sexual orientation discrimination against his employer and for retaliation against his employer and his supervisor, Weiss, individually.Continue Reading California Supreme Court: No Individual Liability for Retaliation under FEHA: Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership