Attorney Daniel Parker Jett's Legal Cases

Employment and labor

Vuchinich v. Dada, et al.

Sep 20, 2005

OUTCOME: Summary judgment for HCMG

Plaintiff physician entered into written employment agreement with employer medical group, HCMG. HCMG assigned the physician's contract to another medical group, which subsequently terminated Plaintif ... f. Plaintiff sued HCMG alleging that HCMG had breached his written employment agreement by assigning his employment contract to a non-eligible assignee based on ambiguous language in the contract's assignment clause. Following the Plaintiff's deposition and written discovery, HCMG brought a motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the Plaintiff's interpretation of the assignment clause was unrealistically narrow, and ruled to interpret the assignment clause broadly in favor of HCMG, making its assignment of the Plaintiff's employment agreement lawful.

Employment and labor

Wagner v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al.

Mar 25, 2002

OUTCOME: Summary Judgment granted to Defendants

Teacher sued employer and colleague for sexual harassment, retaliation and discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), plus defamation and violation of right to privacy under Article ... I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. Both the employer and the co-worker were awarded summary judgment on multiple grounds. First, many of the allegations were time barred under the statute of limitations. Next, the court determined that the allegations, even when undisputed, did not constitute severe and pervasive conduct within the meaning of the law. Also, plaintiff could not prove that the co-worker defamed her or violated her constitutional right to privacy. In fact, the defendant co-worker denied all plaintiff's substantive allegations.

Employment and labor

Rodriguez v. Goodwill Industries of Southern California, et al.

Dec 08, 2000

OUTCOME: Summary Judgment granted to Defendants

Temporary employee sued for pregnancy and sex discrimination. Plaintiff alleged that she requested and was denied an accommodation of light work while she was pregnant, and thus was forced to quit. P ... laintiff also claimed she was denied a position as a regular employee (instead of a temporary employee) because of her pregnancy. Plaintiff did request light work, but had never informed her employer that she was pregnant at the time she made the request. Furthermore, Plaintiff had failed to submit to a physical examination required before instatement as a regular employee. Defendant had posted policies in compliance with California law requiring reasonable notice of any requests for accommodation on account of pregnancy. Because Plaintiff requested on short notice (i.e., the same day as her request) an accommodation of light work on account that she "wasn't feeling well," her request was unreasonable and Defendant was entitled to deny her request. In any event, there was no evidence that Defendant knew about her pregnancy at any time while she was employed. Defendant failed to comply with Defendant's policy that she provide medical certification of her pregnancy in support of her request for accommodation. In fact, Plaintiff never solicited her doctor's advice until after the first time she requested light duty. Plaintiff's medical records showed that she never complained to her doctor about pregnancy-related disability or illness until weeks after Plaintiff abandoned her position. The timing of Plaintiff's pregnancy-related illness was unrelated to her requests for light duty. The Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff could not show that she was a member of a protected class, or that she suffered an adverse employment action related to her protected status.

Daniel Parker Jett's Legal Cases (3)

Vuchinich v. Dada, et al.

Wagner v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al.

Rodriguez v. Goodwill Industries of Southern California, et al.