Wrongful Termination

Subscribe to Wrongful Termination via RSS

McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 48 (Jan. 24, 2013)

John McGrory sued his former employer, alleging he was unlawfully retaliated against for being uncooperative and deceptive during a company investigation into allegations that he had discriminated against a subordinate employee on the basis of her gender and sexual orientation.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary…

Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd., 2012 WL 6628544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)

Julie Gilman Veronese sued Lucasfilm on a number of theories, including pregnancy discrimination, failure to prevent pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Following 11 days of trial and three days of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Veronese in the amount of $93,830 for past economic…

Dutra v. Mercy Med. Ctr. Mt. Shasta, 209 Cal. App. 4th 750 (2012)

Michelle Dutra sued Mercy Medical Center for wrongful termination in violation of public policy based upon Cal. Labor Code § 132a (prohibiting discrimination against an employee who has filed a workers’ compensation claim). After a jury was selected, the trial court granted Mercy’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the…

Sheppard v. David Evans & Assoc., 694 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2012)

Kathryn Sheppard filed a brief, two-and-a-half page complaint in federal court alleging discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and wrongful termination under Oregon state law. The district court dismissed Sheppard’s complaint with prejudice under FRCP 8(a)(2) after concluding she had failed to plead a cause of action with sufficient…

Alamo v. Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp., 2012 WL 4450066 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)

Lorena Alamo sued her former employer Practice Management Information Corp. (“PMIC”) for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Alamo was terminated for poor work performance after she returned from maternity leave. Following a jury…

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a new law protecting employee use of social media by prohibiting an employer from requiring or requesting an employee or applicant for employment to disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing the employee’s personal social media.  Additionally, an employer may not require an employee or applicant to divulge any personal social media unless the employer reasonably…

Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2012 WL 3124970 (9th Cir. 2012)

Nyle J. Hooper brought suit against Lockheed Martin under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (the “FCA”). Hooper filed suit in the District Court for the District of Maryland, which transferred the suit at Lockheed’s request to the Central District of California on forum non conveniens grounds. The California district…

Touchstone Television Prods. v. Superior Court, 208 Cal. App. 4th 676 (2012)

Touchstone had an agreement with actress Nicollette Sheridan that gave it the exclusive option to renew Sheridan’s contract on an annual basis for an additional six seasons (after the first season) of the television show “Desperate Housewives.” Sheridan sued Touchstone for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, claiming she had been…

Touchstone Television Productions v. Superior Court, No. BC435248, 2012 WL 3525609 (Aug. 16, 2012)

If you are among the throngs of Desperate Housewives fans, you may recall when Wisteria Lane’s Edie Williams, played by actress Nicollette Sheridan, tragically died of electrocution following a car accident during the show’s fifth season. Sheridan later filed a lawsuit against Touchstone Television Pictures (“Touchstone”), Desperate Housewives creator Marc Cherry (“Cherry”), and other parties (who have since been dismissed), alleging that her on-screen death and Touchstone’s subsequent failure to renew her fixed-term employment contract were tantamount to a wrongful termination in violation of public policy under California law. Before the series began, Sheridan and Touchstone executed an agreement which paid Sheridan a reported $175,000 per episode to start and gave Touchstone the exclusive option to renew the contract on an annual basis for six seasons. Touchstone exercised its option to renew the contract for Seasons 2 through 5, but informed Sheridan during Season 5 that it would not do so for Season 6. Sheridan alleged in her lawsuit that Touchstone’s decision was the result of a complaint she made about Cherry purportedly striking her during the filming of an episode. (She also asserted a claim of battery, on which the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Touchstone and Cherry.)

On May 23, 2012, the California Court of Appeal addressed a question of first impression: Does California law govern a corporate officer’s claim against an out-of-state corporation for  constructive wrongful termination in violation of public policy? The appellate court answered in the affirmative, thus limiting the application of the so-called “internal affairs doctrine.” Lidow v. Superior Court, 2012 WL 1861372 (Cal. Ct. App. …