MEDICAL OFFICE EMPLOYER REFUSES TO ACCEPT REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS BY EMPLOYEE’S OWN DOCTORS

On or about April 16, 1998, the employee became employed on a full-time basis by Defendant, medical clinic as a front office receptionist earning $10.50 per hour. On or about 8-16-98, the employee was promoted to HMO coordinator earning $12.00 per hour.

On or about August 28, 1998 the employee's disability, currently diagnosed as Metabolic Acidiosos/Acute bronchospasm asthmatics, still being investigated for a diagnosis, but causing the employee severe health problems preventing her from doing major life activities without accommodation, caused the employee to collapse and be unable to breathe. At this time, the employee was taken to the hospital where she remained until September 3, 1998. During this hospitalization, the employee's doctor spoke to partner, shareholder, manager and/or owner of said Defendant Doctor Employer. During this conversation, the employee's doctor informed Doctor Employer of the nature of the employee's hospitalization and the seriousness of her condition. Every day during the employee's hospitalization, the employee spoke to Office Manager of Defendant medical practice. During these discussions, the employee informed Office Manager of the employee's condition and updated Office Manager about the employee's hospitalization, medical problems. And likely return dates to work. During the employee's conversations with Office Manager, and during Doctor Employer's conversations with the employee's doctor, it was made clear that the employee suffered from an unusual medical condition that disabled the employee by interfering with her respiratory system, her ability to breath normally, and that this could at times cause the employee to be hospitalized.

On or about September 10, 1998, the employee returned to work at Defendant medical clinic. At this time, Office Manager called the employee into her office. The meeting started with Office Manager telling the employee that Dr. 2 had told Office Manager that the employee might need to bring oxygen into work, but that was proving to Office Manager that the employee was not able to work, and so the employee would not be allowed to use oxygen while at work. Office Manager then put the employee on 30 days probation because she had missed work and had been on disability. At this time, Office Manager also said that the employee's retroactive raise and salary increase were being taken away from her. Additionally, Office Manager said that the employee's insurance was being taken away and that the employee would have to "prove herself" in order to get her insurance back.

Upon returning to work, the employee was also told that she could not miss another hour of work. The employee explained that she had tests and follow up tests and that she might have to take off for these medical appointments on the 15th and the 19th.

At 1:00 P.M. on 9-10-98, the employee told Office Manager that the employee could not yet be back at work if she could not use her oxygen, and that she had to leave. Later on that day, Office Manager called the employee and told her that she was fired.

At the time that the employee came back to work, and before she was fired, the physicians at Defendant were of the opinion that the employee suffered from a disability which was more serious than asthma, and they thought she might have lung cancer. The employee is also informed and believes that the doctors at said Defendant and Office Manager knew that the employee was prescribed oxygen to be used for one or two fifteen minute intervals during an eight hour work day, or as needed. The employee believes this information was also known to Office Manager.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CASE RESULT: This case settled quickly after it was filed.

FAILURE TO ALLOW SOCIAL WORKER LEAVE FOR CANCER TREATMENT

At all times herein mentioned, more than 5 persons were employed by the Defendant in the location where the employee was employed. On or about January 6, 2011 employee went out on leave due to tonsil cancer that was diagnosed in late 2010. employee had surgery, chemotherapy, and had to recuperate. Plaintiff provided Defendant with various documents from her healthcare provider indicating she could not work, and otherwise informed them of the nature of her cancer, surgery, related treatment, and health. By April 22, 2011 Plaintiff's expected return date was July 1, 2011.

On or about June 6, 2011 Plaintiff met with Defendant's Human Resource Director. employee told Human Resources she hoped to come back June 17, 2011. Human Resources told employee that if she could not come back by July she would be fired. employee moved her doctor's appointment to June 9, 2011 in an attempt to determine if she could be released by July 1, 2011. However, employee's doctor did not release her on June 9, 2011 because employee's immune system was still at a very low level and believed there was a risk of infection going to work with the public.

On or about June 21, 2011 employee faxed Human Resources a note stating that she could work modified duty (part-time) from July 5, 2011 to July 22, 2011.

On or about June 23, 2011 employee was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. A surgery occurred on June 28, 2011.

On or about June 27, 2011 employee said to Human Resources "Don't I qualify under the Americans With Disabilities Act." At this time Human Resources was telling the employee that she would be terminated.

June 29, 2011 Human Resources sent the employee an e-mail stating the employee's employment would terminate July 1, 2011. July 1, 2011 Defendant mailed the employee a series of paperwork associated with a July 1, 2011 termination of employment.

Defendant failed to provide the employee a reasonable accommodation to recuperate and rid her body of her cancers. It would not have been an undue burden for Defendant to simply wait until the employee was released to return to work.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION DUE TO CANCER CASE RESULT: $182,500 settlement

STUDIO CITY UNDERWRITER NOT ACCOMMODATED DUE TO DISABILITY

At all times herein mentioned, the the employee was a diabetic whose condition was serious enough that he had to give himself injections of insulin several times a day and maintain a regimented schedule of sleep and nourishment. Additionally, in order for the the employee to maintain proper blood sugar levels, the employee finds it difficult to eat meals that are not prepared according to the employee's dietary needs. Basically, it is difficult for the employee to balance his diet by eating foods prepared in restaurants that may contain too much salt, too much sugar, or not enough thereof. Moreover, the employee finds it difficult to balance his meals based upon restaurant menus. Diabetes is a metabolic disease that requires close monitoring, strict adherence to nutritional, medical, and physical rules. Non-compliance with health parameters, even after the short term, can and does cause severe negative health implications for diabetics who are insulin dependent such as the employee.

On or about April 26, 1994, O.C. of said Defendant's St. Petersburg office contacted the employee and told the employee that the training session would be not for one week, but for three weeks. During this conversation, the employee told O.C. that such a long hotel stay could negatively impact the employee's physical health due to his diabetic condition. The employee inquired of O.C. whether there might alternative training arrangements whereby the employee would not have to stay in a hotel for three weeks. O.C. responded by saying "Do you want this job or what?" She also stated "you are making a poor first impression" by telling me that you have a diabetic condition that may cause your physical health to be effected.

After speaking to O.C., the employee contacted LA. The employee told LA that the employee was concerned about Ms. tortfeasor’s remarks because they indicated a lack of understanding and willingness to make reasonable accommodations for the employee's health requirements necessitated by his diabetic condition. The employee told LA that the employee believed that such a prolonged hotel stay would cause the employee to face difficulty in developing preparations in the management of the employee's diabetic condition. Due to LA's overnight Federal Express request that the employee immediately drive from south Florida to Saint Petersburg for training, and the employee's recent move from California to Florida, the employee experienced out of control blood sugar levels by the time that he arrived in Saint Petersburg on or about May 1, 1994.

On or about May 1, 1994, the employee began experiencing insulin shock reactions which are reactions diabetics have when their blood sugar levels fall below certain ranges.

On or about May 3, 1994, the employee suffered a convulsive seizure at his hotel due to his dangerous blood sugar levels.

By on or about May 5, 1994, the employee's blood sugar level indicated that the employee was suffering from hyperglycemia. On or about this date, the employee told LA that the employee was having severe problems with his diabetes due to the hotel stay, and that the employee had suffered a seizure the night before. At this time, the employee reminded LA that diabetics require adherence to a strict diet, lifestyle, and a timetable of rest and nourishment so that they can maintain a healthy lifestyle.

On or about May 5, 1994, LA told the employee that the employee would not be permitted to return to work until the employee obtained a doctor's note stating that the employee was capable of returning to work. LA told the employee that these were orders from big boss in said Defendant's Human Resource Department in Virginia.

On or about May 5, 1994, the employee became informed that said Defendant's Florida and Virginia management did not want to continue employing the employee because the employee was a diabetic with medical problems, and at the time that they hired the employee to work in Hollywood, this management did not have the employee's health insurance records from said Defendant.

On or about May 9, 1994, LA told the employee that Mr. LA had researched the employee's health, and as a result LA wanted to "part ways" with the employee, and not have the employee be an underwriter in Hollywood. Mr. LA told the employee that LA already had another person lined up to take the employee's job in Hollywood. LA also told the employee that LA thought that the employee had been deceitful and manipulative for failing to disclose that the employee was in need of a kidney transplant due to his diabetic condition. At no time herein mentioned was the employee ever in need of a kidney transplant, nor does the employee believe that any of his medical records reflect this. Additionally, on this date, LA told the employee that LA would check with Virginia to see if the employee could be moved back to California. The employee is further informed and believes that Ventura and supervisor were contacted several times by LA, before May 10, 1994, for the sole purpose of LA making inquiries into the employee's diabetic condition.

By on or about May 10, 1994, LA demanded that the employee immediately return to work regardless of the poor condition of the employee's health.

On or about May 10, 1994, the employee informed Ventura that LA and the management controlling the employee in Florida were being very insensitive to the employee's diabetic condition.

Attached hereto, made a part hereof, and Marked as Exhibit 2 to this disability discrimination lawsuit is a true and correct copy of a letter that was transmitted to said Defendant's principal place of business in Studio City California on or about May 12, 1994.

On or about May 12, 1994, Dr. Mission placed the employee on disability from May 9, 1994 until June 1, 1994 due to the employee's diabetic condition, and excluded the employee from being able to travel during this time frame.

On or about May 13, 1994, Thomas Monrovia in said Defendant's Virginia Human Resources office told the employee that the Monrovia had received Exhibit 2 and that Monrovia wanted a physician's note indicating that the employee could work a 40 plus hour work week, and that if the employee was not wiling to travel he would be demoted a suffer a salary reduction. Never before had the employee been told that it would be part of his position that he would have to travel regularly.

Between on or about June 1, 1994 and June 12, 1994, the employee repeatedly asked LA and others at the Hollywood office when he could start work. They would say that the office was not set up for underwriting yet and they would tell the employee not to come in.

On or about June 13, 1994, the employee came to the Hollywood Office for his first day of work. On or about June 15, 1994, the employee found a letter of layoff on his desk that had been signed by said Defendant's personnel department in Virginia. At the time of the employee's alleged layoff, nobody else from Hollywood was laid off, nor were any of the other new underwriters in the Florida branches.

The employee is informed and believes that LA had negative feelings towards the employee because the employee had diabetes. The employee is informed and believes that LA is a former tennis pro, very concerned with health issues, has no confidence in people with health problems and disabilities and believed that the employee was unfit to work due to the employee's diabetic condition and the fact that the employee needed to do certain things in his life in order to ensure that his health was good. Additionally, LA did not like the fact that the employee planned to keep synergies at the Hollywood office including in the office's refrigerator.

At all times herein mentioned, the employee was ready, willing, and able to perform his job functions at Hollywood and elsewhere. All the employee needed were reasonable accommodations such as a refrigerator to store his insulin (which the employee agreed to pay for), three weeks off to bring his blood sugar levels back to normal after moving and being forced to stay at the hotel immediately thereafter, reasonable notice of activities that the employee had to participate in that would cause prolonged travel if not done by airplane, the ability to prepare meals for himself, have supervisors who would assist in the employee's emergency medical needs, and maintain a regular eating and sleeping schedule.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CASE RESULT: The disabled employee found a better job and entered into a confidential settlement with his previous employer.

DESPICABLE TREATMENT OF WEST HILLS DISABLED SALESMAN

The employee suffers from Crohn's disease which causes an inflammation to the employee's intestine. As a result of this disease, the employee had a colostomy bag at all times that he was working for all named Defendants, and each of them. During this time, Defendant, Gardena, created an unsafe and unhealthy work environment for the employee and discriminated against the employee on the basis of the employee's disability by refusing to let the employee take bathroom breaks and go to the closest bathroom to where all named Defendants, and each of their, suites were located in the Inglewood premises described in Paragraph 2 of this discrimination lawsuit.

Beginning on or about November of 1995, Defendant, Gardena began falsely accusing the employee of making messes in the building's restrooms.

Beginning on or about February of 1996, Defendant, Gardena began telling the other employees on the premises described in Paragraph 2 that the employee smelled.

On or about March 8, 1996, Gardena gave the employee a note accusing the employee of having made a mess out of a handicapped stall in the men's bathroom. The note asks why the employee wants to "do it the hard way" and it threatened to deduct $100.00 from the employee's paycheck if the employee used the 8th floor men's room again. Moreover, from on or about March 8th onward, said Defendant forbid the employee to use the men's room on the floor of all named Defendants' office. Instead, the employee was told to use a men's room on the 5th floor of the building. If it took the employee what said Defendant thought was an unusually long length of time to use the bathroom on the other floor, said Defendant would write the employee notes stating that the employee could not take so long to use the bathroom.

From on or about April 1, 1996, said Defendant refused to let the employee use the bathroom. The employee's colostomy bag broke and the employee became covered with waste and had to wash his clothes out in the sink in the men's bathroom.

On or about April 4, 1996, said Defendant deducted $100.00 from the employee's paycheck for a bathroom clean-up that said Defendant believed was a result of the employee.

Before accepting employment with all named Defendants, and each of them, the employee told the individual Defendant that the employee had an operation scheduled in December of 1995 so that the employee's colostomy could be reversed.

As it became closer to December of 1995, the individual Defendant told the employee that the employee could only have a week off for the surgery. The employee told said Defendant that the employee's health care providers believed that it would take the employee two weeks to recover from the operation, and that one week off would not be enough. Said Defendant refused to give the employee two weeks off and as a result the employee did not have the operation. On or about February or March of 1997, the employee's doctors diagnosed her with depression. On or about March 17, 1997, the employee was placed on mental disability leave because of her depression and psychiatric condition associated with her depression.

INGLEWOOD DISABILITY CASE RESULT: Confidential settlement immediately before binding arbitration hearing.