Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008)

Marie Bernadette Mendiondo, who worked as a nurse at the medical center, alleged she was terminated in retaliation for her complaints regarding allegedly false billing and reimbursement practices and substandard patient care in violation of the Federal and California False Claims Acts. Although the district court dismissed her claims, the Ninth Circuit

Villanueva v. City of Colton, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1188 (2008)

After Daniel Villanueva was demoted from Lead Operator to Operator II, he sued the city for discrimination based on race, national origin, ethnicity or skin color and for retaliation for his having complained about the alleged discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city after concluding Villanueva had made “unsupported charges

Mokler v. County of Orange, 157 Cal. App. 4th 121 (2007)

Pamela Mokler was employed as the executive director of the County’s Office on Aging (“OoA”). Following her termination, she sued the County for breach of contract, wrongful termination, hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5 (the “whistleblower statute”). The jury awarded Mokler $14,089.60 in past economic damages and $1,681,823

Wysinger v. Automobile Club of S. Cal., 157 Cal. App. 4th 413 (2007)

Guy Wysinger, a former district manager for ACSC’s Santa Barbara office, filed a complaint with the EEOC in 1999 in which he alleged that ACSC had discriminated against him on the basis of his age. Thereafter, Wysinger’s work environment changed – he was no longer invited to be on management committees

Casella v. SouthWest Dealer Services, 157 Cal. App. 4th 1127 (2007)

Zachary Casella was employed as a sales representative for SouthWest Dealer Services, which sells its aftermarket auto products to auto dealerships and helps train auto dealership finance and insurance salespeople on how to promote and sell SouthWest’s products. Casella moved from New York to California to accept the position. After his employment was

Metoyer v. Screen Actors Guild, 504 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2007)

SAG terminated the employment of Dr. Patricia Heisser Metoyer (SAG’s national executive director of affirmative action) after PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded she had authorized payment of $30,000 of funds available for Guild use to friends, business partners and her husband’s production company. Metoyer responded by filing a lawsuit alleging race discrimination, wrongful termination and retaliation

Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2007)

James R. Poland, a former employee of the U.S. Customs Service, alleged age discrimination in violation of the ADEA, retaliation and constructive discharge resulting from his transfer to a new job in a new location. After a bench trial, the district court entered a $339,000 judgment in favor of Poland. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the determination

Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2007)

Anthony L. Williams, a maintenance worker, sued United Airlines and his former supervisor, alleging retaliatory discrimination under the Federal Airline Deregulation Act’s Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP) and related state law claims. Williams claimed that he was terminated in retaliation for a dispute related to an alleged safety violation. Although United did not challenge

Payan v. Aramark Mgmt. Services Ltd. P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2007)

In response to a charge of discrimination and retaliation that Martha E. Payan filed with the EEOC, the agency issued a right-to-sue letter on September 26, 2003. Payan asserted that the date she received the letter was “unknown.” However, it was undisputed that she failed to file her Title VII complaint

McRae v. Dep’t of Corrections, 127 Cal. App. 4th 779 (2005)

Dr. Margie McRae filed a lawsuit against her employer, the California Department of Corrections, and four individual defendants, seeking damages for discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The trial court granted summary judgment to the four individual defendants, and the case proceeded to trial against the