A newly enacted, under-the-radar statute in California could undermine efforts by employers to challenge the expert opinion testimony regarding alleged emotional distress offered by employees at trial.
In many if not most employment trials, the employee’s lawyer offers the expert testimony of a psychiatrist/psychologist (paid for by the plaintiff) who tells the jury about the existence and extent of the emotional distress the employee allegedly
In 2005, attorney Jacqueline Fabe filed claim for unpaid wages against her employer with the Labor Commissioner. Her employer then filed a malpractice suit against Fabe, and Fabe in response filed a retaliation suit with the Labor Commissioner. Fabe and the Labor Commissioner later won on all claims. In March 2010, Fabe filed a motion
Nicole Woodworth was a registered nurse at Loma Linda University Medical Center from December 2011 to June 2014. In June 2014, she filed a putative class action against Loma Linda, alleging various wage and hour claims on behalf of herself and other employees. She later amended her complaint to add a
Ayon v. Esquire Deposition Solutions, LLC, 27 Cal. App. 5th 487 (2018)
Brittini Zuppardo, a scheduling manager for Esquire Deposition Solutions, was talking on her cell phone while driving home from her boyfriend’s house when her vehicle struck Jessica Ayon, causing significant injuries. At the time of the accident, Zuppardo was speaking with Michelle Halkett, one of Esquire’s court reporters. Zuppardo and Halkett
Pantoja v. Anton, 198 Cal. App. 4th 87 (2011)
Lorraine Pantoja sued attorney Thomas J. Anton and his firm for wrongful termination, violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), battery, sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. By the time of the trial, only the FEHA claims remained. In their motions in limine, defendants sought to exclude any reference to the
Kotla v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 115 Cal. App. 4th 283 (2004)
Dee Kotla, a former computer support technician, sued the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (the Lab) for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) after she testified at a deposition in support of another employee’s claim of sexual harassment. The Lab contended that it had terminated Kotla’s employment as
People v. Laiwala, 115 Cal. App. 4th 850, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 466 (2004)
Sadrudin Laiwala, a former engineer of Odeum Microsystems, a division of Hyundai Electronics America, allegedly copied and took with him a “DVD copy protection system” immediately prior to his departure from the company. Laiwala was criminally prosecuted for violation of California Penal Code Section 499c, which prohibits the theft of
Colarossi v. Coty US Inc., 97 Cal. App. 4th 1142 (2002)
In this case of alleged wrongful termination in violation of public policy, Kimberly Colarossi alleged that her employment was terminated after she participated as a witness in an investigation of sexual harassment by a manager at the company (Deborah Bassett). The trial court excluded as hearsay evidence that a co-employee had told another