On or about October 9, 1992, the Plaintiff became employed by all named Defendants, and each of them, on a full-time basis as a customer service representative. During the Plaintiff's employment with said Defendants, and each of them, the Plaintiff was first promoted to Quality Control Supervisor, Dispatch, and then Relief Supervisor during approximately July of 1995. At the time of the Plaintiff's termination from all named Defendants, and each of them, on or about 4-22-99, the Plaintiff was earning $9.50 per hour and receiving employment benefits.
On or about Friday February 19, 1999 the Plaintiff first began suffering from the symptoms of a sever stomach flu caused by a virus, and properly named Gastroenteritis. As this illness progressed, the Plaintiff experienced symptoms of dehydration. On or about February 19, 1999, the Plaintiff told her supervisor that the Plaintiff had to go home early due to illness. On February 22, 1999 (Monday) the Plaintiff again left work because she was ill. On or about February 23, 1999, the Plaintiff did not come to work because she was suffering from this serious medical condition.
During this same time frame, on or about February 24, 1999, the Plaintiff's five year old daughter caught the same virus, and began suffering magnified symptoms associated with this virus because the Plaintiff's daughter was a child. On or about February 24, 1999, the Plaintiff went to the emergency room with her daughter. From the emergency room the Plaintiff called her supervisor and told her that her daughter had a 103 degree fever and was very ill with the stomach sickness. Due to the daughter's illness, based upon doctor's orders, the Plaintiff was required to stay with her daughter and care for her until March 2, 1999 when the Plaintiff's daughter was allowed to go back to school. The Plaintiff informed her supervisor of these conditions and arranged to be off of work until March 2, 1999 in order to care for her daughter's serious medical condition.
On or about April 11, 1999 (Sunday), the Plaintiff and get daughter once again began suffering severe symptoms associated with Gastroenteritis. Amongst these symptoms were all night stomach illness and dehydration. On April 12, 1999, the Plaintiff called her supervisor and told her that the Plaintiff and her daughter were once again sick all night with vomiting and diarrhea. On or about April 13, 1999, the Plaintiff and her daughter went to the emergency room due to the illness they had. From the emergency room, the Plaintiff called her supervisor and explained the symptoms of the illness the Plaintiff and her daughter were suffering from.
On April 14th, 15th, and the 16th, the Plaintiff called her supervisor and told her that due to the Plaintiff and her daughter's illness the Plaintiff was unable to come into work. During these conversations, the Plaintiff explained the symptoms of the serious medical condition that the Plaintiff and her daughter were suffering from as the Plaintiff had done each time that she had to miss work due to this illness.
On or about April 19, 1999, when the Plaintiff called in to her supervisor, the Plaintiff was told to check with Human Resources. The Plaintiff spoke to human resources who initially did not know why the Plaintiff was being asked to call human resources. Human Resources then called the Plaintiff back and told her to bring in all of her doctor's excuses. On April 19, 1999 the Plaintiff brought in all of her doctor's excuses, and her daughter's, including one stating that the Plaintiff was to be out until April 20, 1999. Human Resources told the Plaintiff that human resources was going to write the Plaintiff up and investigate the Plaintiff's absences while the Plaintiff wa on suspension.
On or about April 22, 1999, human resources told the Plaintiff she would have a response for the Plaintiff by Friday the 23rd because human resources was still investigating the Plaintiff's absences.
On or about April 22, 1999, the Plaintiff received a termination paper stating that the Plaintiff was terminated due to excessive tardies and absences. The Plaintiff had only been tardy one time during recent history, and all of her absences were due to her and her daughter's serious medical condition.FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (FMLA) CASE RESULT: A confidential settlement was reached. Ironically, Gerber deposed human resources, for a second time years later, in another case against another employer in which she was once again accused of contributing to a wrongful employment decision that was in litigation.
On or about Saturday 9-26-98, the Plaintiff collapsed at home due to a gallbladder problem he was having, and he was brought to the hospital. On or about 9-28-98, the Plaintiff was operated on, and on or about 10-3-98, the Plaintiff was released from the hospital.
On or about Monday 9-28-98, the Plaintiff called said Defendant's General Manager, and said that he was in the hospital, he collapsed because of a gallbladder condition, he had an emergency operation, and that lots of liquid was still coming out of him so he could not come in to work. General Manager asked the Plaintiff how long the Plaintiff would be out of work. The Plaintiff said that if all goes well he would be back to work in 4 weeks. Following this conversation, before being released from the hospital, the Plaintiff spoke to General Manager, a few more times about the Plaintiff's medical condition and his need to be out of work for approximately 4 weeks. During all of these conversations it was understood that the Plaintiff's job would be held open until he recuperated from his medical problems if he was out for approximately 4 weeks.
On or about 10-5-98, the Plaintiff's doctor told the Plaintiff to stay out another week. Following this restriction, the Plaintiff was then told that he could go back to work but that he should not lift. The Plaintiff communicated both of these conditions to General Manager shortly after they were placed on the Plaintiff.
On or about 10-19-98 or 10-20-98, the Plaintiff brought in the doctor's note releasing the Plaintiff to go back to work, but stating that he had a lifting restriction. General Manager told the Plaintiff that if the Plaintiff had any restrictions at all he could not come back to work.
On or about 11-2-98, the Plaintiff's doctor told the Plaintiff he could return to work without limitations. On this same day, the Plaintiff showed General Manager a doctor's note stating this. At that time, General Manager told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff's position had been filled.
On or about 11-3-98, the Plaintiff went back to make sure that he had actually been fired. At this time, General Manager told the Plaintiff that General Manager had nothing for the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff's spot had been filled while the Plaintiff was out, and that the replacement could not be fired because it cost money to train the replacement.
This cause of action is based upon California Government Code Section 12945.2 for said Defendant terminating the Plaintiff, and refusing to hold the Plaintiff's position open while he was out on leave authorized under said statute. California Family Leave Act (CFRA) statute Additionally, said Defendant discriminated against the Plaintiff for taking leave under said statute, and did so by terminating the Plaintiff, refusing to hold his position open, and refusing to reassign the Plaintiff to another position within their large organization.CFRA VIOLATION CASE RESULT: The matter settled, but the details are lost to time.
On or about March 9, 2004, Plaintiff went on leave for hypertension, generalized anxiety with a return date of May 10, 2004. At the time Plaintiff went on this leave, she was eligible for Family Care Leave because she had, and was continuing to, work approximately 1,820 hours a year as a customer service representative earning $15.31 an hour, plus benefits, which did not put her in the top 10% of the employee salaries at Defendant.Upon coming back from this leave, the manager over the Retirement Department, where Plaintiff worked, retaliated against Plaintiff. The retaliation included:
On or about August 14, 2004, without notice, Plaintiff's blood pressure again raised to an uncontrollable level of 173/115. She went to the emergency room.
On or about August 18, 2004, Manager of Retirement Home told Plaintiff she was being termianted because she had too many points against her. Plaintiff had less points than allowed under Defendant's policies.FMLA FOR HYPERTENSION CASE RESULTS: There was a confidential settlement
On or about September 24, 2002, Plaintiff became very ill and had to leave work. It was then determined that she had severe bronchitis and ammonia, and that she fractured her ribs due to the illness. Plaintiff faxed Defendant a doctor's note on that day indicating that she was being put out on leave due to her illness. Plaintiff also told her supervisor about her illness. Plaintiff is informed and believes that she may have been put on Family Care Leave, by Defendant, at that time, but if she was not she should have been because she was suffering from a serious medical condition requiring her to miss work, and Defendant did consider Plaintiff on such leave by between September 25, 2002 and October 9, 2002 as referenced in a letter written by Defendant October 11, 2002.
On or about September 30, 2002, Plaintiff attempted to go back to work. She told Supervisor that she had pneumonia and bronchitis which lead to a fractured rib. On October 1, 2002, Supervisor told Plaintiff to go home because she was still ill. Plaintiff then went to the doctor which put her on leave until October 10, 2002. Plaintiff then faxed Supervisor paperwork concerning that leave.
On October 10, 2002, Plaintiff returned to work and was terminated. Plaintiff was told that the company hired somebody they could depend on who wouldn't be absent. This was said to Plaintiff by a Vice-President. There were at least 3 others who could have done Plaintiff's job, and it should have been held open while she was on Family Care Leave.
This cause of action is based upon California Government Code Section 12945.2 for the Defendant terminating the Plaintiff, discriminating against Plaintiff, and refusing to hold the Plaintiff's position open while Plaintiff was out on leave due to the serious medical conditions of having bronchitis, pneumonia, and fractured ribs requiring her to be off work from approximately September 24, 2002 through October 10, 2002 with the exception of the brief time she tried to come back to work. Plaintiff contends that the California Family Care Leave Act required that her job be held open for her while she was on leave between approximately September 24, 2002 through October 10, 2002.CASE RESULT FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY CRFA/FMLA VIOLATIONS: The matter settled, but the details are lost in time.
On or about June 5, 2008, Plaintiff went to an Urgent Care and was informed a spider bite on her buttocks had become infected.
On or June 6, 2008, Plaintiff went back to the doctor due to a 104-105 degree fever caused by the spider bite. Plaintiff left the doctor with a note stating she should not work for a week. On or about June 6, 2008, the note was tendered to employee in charge of Defendant's human resource department. Plaintiff also spoke to Employee in Charge of Human Resources and told her about the note, how she was taken off work, and how the spider bite caused her an allergic reaction.
On or about June 7, 2008, Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital where she remained for approximately eight hours. Incisions were made to try to drain the poison from the bite. Plaintiff was released from the hospital with instructions not to work or go to school and to take Vicodin.
On or about June 9, 2008, Plaintiff was at Kaiser's wound care being treated for a wound the spider bite and wound caused. She was informed the wound was still open and tender. As a result, Plaintiff was told to lie on her stomach. She was further informed that she might not be able to return to work in a week.
On or about June 16, 2008, Plaintiff spoke to Employee in Charge of Human Resources and told her the doctor at woundcare said she probably could not go back to work as planned, but Plaintiff would be seeing the doctor that day to see if they would release her.
When Plaintiff went to wound care on June 16, 2008, they told her the wound was still open and tender. Plaintiff was further told she should not be sitting on the wound, and due to her work as a receptionist she would have to be taken off work until June 20, 2008. Plaintiff then brought the note into Employee in Charge of Human Resources, told her the doctor was taking her off another week, and she would be back on June 23, 2008.
Plaintiff returned to work June 23, 2008. A few minutes into her shift, she was told Vice-President and son of the owner wanted to see her. Plaintiff proceeded to meet with son of owner who asked her how she was feeling. She told him that other than the hole in her buttocks she was feeling fine. Son of owner told Plaintiff Defendant had to be let go. Employee in Charge of Human Resources told Plaintiff she was sorry it had to happen. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant did not want to wait for her to come back due her serious medical condition and others replaced and/or began doing her work while she was out on leave.
The Plaintiff alleges that said Defendant violated California Government Code Section 12945.2 by doing the conduct alleged in this cause of action including, but not limited to those things alleged in the attached DFEH charges as well as failing to grant Plaintiff a leave to care for Plaintiff's condition, failing to reinstate Plaintiff which had the effect of actually denying an approximate two week leave as allowed under the CFRA. Plaintiff alleges Plaintiff was retaliated against by Defendant firing Plaintiff for exercising rights under FEHA in violation of California Government Code Section 12940(h) because had Plaintiff not taken a CFRA leave Plaintiff would not have been refused reinstatement or fired.CASE RESULT FOR CFRA/FMLA RIGHTS INTERFERENCE & TERMINATION OF TARZANA WOMAN: A confidential settlement was reached, and the employee found employment more germane to her career.
On or about March of 1995, the Plaintiff became employed by all named Defendants, and each of them, on a full-time basis. At the time of the Plaintiff's termination from all named Defendants, and each of them, on or about 7-16-98, the Plaintiff held the position of Office Coordinator where she earned $8.00 per hour plus substantial employment benefits.
On or about 5-4-98, a glass vase fell on the Plaintiff's face and caused her severe injuries including daily headaches, nerve damage, and hair loss. Due to these serious medical conditions, and the Plaintiff's inability to work without suffering headaches and injury, the Plaintiff's doctor placed her on disability from on or about 5-8-98 until 7-20-98.
On May 22, 1998, all named Defendants' Director of Human Resources sent the Plaintiff a letter on joint employer's stationary stating that as of 5-7-98, the Plaintiff was considered to be on Family Care and Medical Leave for a maximum of 12 weeks. Additionally, Director of Human Resources enclosed a letter stating that the Plaintiff was approved for a Leave of Absence from 5-7-98 until 7-30-98.
On or about July 16, 1998, the Plaintiff called all named Defendants' Vice President and informed her that consistent with earlier discussions, the Plaintiff had sufficiently recovered from her serious medical condition in order to enable her to return to work on Monday July 20, 1998. During this telephone conversation, Vice-President told the Plaintiff that she had been replaced while on leave.CFRA/FMLA VIOLATION CASE RESULT: The lawyer for the employer admitted CFRA/FMLA rights were violated and moved to promptly resolve the case with Gerber who he knew to be a reputable lawyer who represented employees