Employment and labor Lawyer
Practice Areas: Employment & Labor
OUTCOME: Dismissal affirmed on appeal
Former state worker sought reinstatement from disability retirement. She sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the ADA. In a case of first impression, the 9th Circuit held that Section 1983 may not b ... e used to enforce Title I of the ADA
OUTCOME: Summary judgment for the employer
Mendoza sued for national origin discrimination, harassment and other claims under state and federal law.
OUTCOME: Summary Judgment for employer
Kelly Keehner sued the employer for disability discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act.
OUTCOME: Summary judgment for the employer
Ayala sued his employer for disability discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
OUTCOME: The court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment
Edna Lim sued her former employer for wrongful termination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
OUTCOME: Defense verdict affirmed on appeal (June 2012)
Diane F. Colby was a real estate salesperson for Signature Properties, Inc. in Rocklin California. As a result of the declining real estate market, Signature laid off Ms. Colby along with a number of o ... ther employees. She asserted retaliatino claims under common law and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
OUTCOME: Summary judgment granted
The plaintiff sued for wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on alleged "whistleblowing." The court found the plaintiff was fired for legitimate reasons and granted the employer's m ... otion for summary judgment
OUTCOME: Defense verdict
Three plaintiffs alleged retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. They claimed they complained to management about management policies of the CEO of a hospital. They claimed ... they were fired or constructively discharged. After an 11-day trial, the jury found in favor of the defendants after four hours of deliberations.
OUTCOME: The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment
The California Supreme Court held that employers do not have to accommodate applicants' use of medical marijuana, the use of which is lawful under California law.
OUTCOME: The California Supreme Court reversed
The California Supreme Court held that the term employment "at will" means "at will" even if the term is not defined completely within the terms of an offer letter.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
