OUTCOME: defendant served plaintiff with an offer to compromise for $60,001, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs. Plaintiff accepted. The Court awarded $165,000 in attorneys fee plus $9,053 in costs plus interest
On November 6, 2002, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. hired Mayra Rolon as a cashier. In March 2003, Rolon discovered that she was a high-risk pregnancy and notified her supervisor. On Sept. 24, 2003, Home De...pot terminated Rolon's employment, claiming Rolon violated company policy resulting from an incident involving $500 cash loss to the company. Rolon broght an action against Home Depot alleging, among other things, discrimination/failure to accommodate her pregnancy. Plaintiff asserted that after she notified her supervisor of her high risk pregnancy, Home Depot transferred her to the Bookkeeping/Vault Department. While in that department, her supervisor stated that pregnant women should not be in the department, exposed her to chemicals, and fabricated a discipline notice about her. Further, the plaintiff claimed that Home Depot falsely accused her of stealing money. Rolon was interviewed by the loss prevention center regarding the missing $500. The loss prevention person accused Rolon of taking the money for her unborn child and/or to have an abortion. After several hours of questioning, rolon started experiencing contractions and took the rest of the day off. When she came back to work, Home Depot fired her for company violations. On May 1, 2007, after mediation with Gig Kyriacou, defendant served plaintiff with an offer to compromise for $21,001, which included attorneys fees plus costs. Plaintiff rejected this offer. On April 4, 2008, after mediation with Nikki Tolt, defendant served plaintiff with an offer to compromise for $60,001, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs. Plaintiff accepted. The Court awarded $165,000 in attorneys fee plus $9,053 in costs plus interest.
Wrongful termination
Harris v. City of Santa Monica
Feb 27, 2007
OUTCOME: Verdict for $177, 905 ($27,905 economic; $150,000 non-economic) plus $4,340 cost, court granted motion for $401,188 in attorney fees
On Oct. 4, 2004, plaintiff Wynona Harris, was hired by City of Santa Monica Big Blue Bus as a motor coach operator trainee. After successfully completing the training program, On Nov. 14, 2004, the pl...aintiff was promoted to motor coach operator part time. The first and only evaluation that plaintiff received was on March 1, 2005. During the evaluation meeting, the plaintiff only received positive feedback. On April 26, 2005, the plaintiff asked the person in charge of scheduling for a late run because she had to report to juvenile court with her minor daughter on April 27. The plaintiff was scheduled to report to work at 5:00 p.m. on April 27. On April 27, at 8:30 a.m., the plaintiff and her minor daughter reported to Inglewood Juvenile Court for a hearing. At approximately 2 to 2:30 p.m., the plaintiff contacted the dispatch office to advise that she was still in court and had not seen the judge. The plaintiff further indicated that there was a possibility that she would not make it to sign in on time. The dispatch officer replied that plaintiff was not due to sign in until 5:00 p.m. and that she still had time to call her back. However, as a result of the event that took place in court that day, the judge indicated that plaintiff’s daughter was being charged with a felony and ordered her daughter to register with a probationary officer. The plaintiff was under stress and forgot to call the dispatch office back. The plaintiff left court that day around 4-4:30 p.m. After court, the plaintiff and her daughter drove to the probationary department. On May 3, when the plaintiff reported to work, she was instructed to go to the Transit Services Manager’s office. The Transit Services Manager indicated to plaintiff the reason he wanted to talk to her was because she did not report to work on April 27, after court. The plaintiff indicated to him that she had attended court that morning and that she called the dispatch office to inform them that she was still in court and had not seen the judge so that the dispatch officer could find coverage for her in case she did not make it. The plaintiff called the dispatch office to give them enough notice so that they could have someone on standby just in case the plaintiff did not make it. The plaintiff also provided the Transit Services Manager with confirmation from the court indicating that she was in fact in court on April 27. During that meeting, the Transit Services Manager never indicted to plaintiff that she was being considered for termination. A few days after the plaintiff’s meeting with the Transit Services Manager, in the hallway of the dispatch are, one of plaintiff’s supervisors while with the Transit Services Manager indicated to plaintiff that her shirttail was not tucked in. The plaintiff told her supervisor that she was expecting. The supervisor responded by saying, “Wow, how far along are you?†and “what are you going to do?†The plaintiff was shocked and did not know how to respond. The supervisor then asked the plaintiff to obtain a note from her doctor indicating that it was safe for her to drive the bus. On May 12, the plaintiff obtained a doctor’s note indicating that plaintiff had been under their care for her pregnancy and that “it was okay for her to drive at work. No heavy lifting or strenuous physical labor.â€On May 16, the plaintiff saw her supervisor speaking to the Transit Services Manager at the dispatch waiting area. The plaintiff walked up to her supervisor and the Transit Services Manager and handed the doctor’s note.On May 18, two days after the plaintiff provided the defendant with the doctor’s note, when she reported to work, the dispatch office told her to report to the Transit Services Manager’s office. The Transit Services Manager indicated to plaintiff that although he had heard a lot of positive things about the plaintiff he had to terminate her employment with the city.
