Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644 (Cal. S. Ct. 2015)

Avery Richey worked for Power Toyota Cerritos, part of the AutoNation consortium of automobile dealerships, for approximately four years before allegedly injuring his back while moving furniture at his home. Following the injury, Richey applied for and was granted a medical leave of absence (which was extended on multiple occasions) under

We invite you to review our newly posted September 2011 California Employment Law Notes — a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law.  The highlights include:

Rogers v. County of Los Angeles, 198 Cal. App. 4th 480 (2011)

After 19 weeks of medical leave, Katrina L. Rogers returned to her job as the personnel officer in the executive office responsible for rendering administrative and other support services to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. During her LOA, Rogers’ doctor told her that she could not perform her duties because

Avila v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 1237 (2008)

Henry Avila sued his employer, Chelsea Food Services (a division of Continental Airlines), following his termination for excessive absences from work. Avila sued for disability discrimination and for violation of his rights under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”). The trial court granted summary judgment to Continental, but the Court of Appeal reversed

Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, 43 Cal. 4th 201 (2008)

Antonina Lonicki, a certified technician of sterile processing, was fired when she failed to return to her job at Sutter, following a leave of absence. During the leave, Lonicki continued to perform the same job duties at Kaiser in the same geographic area. In her lawsuit, Lonicki alleged Sutter had violated the California Family

Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003)

Xin Liu lost her job as a scientist in the Concentrate Development Department of the Nutrilite Division of Amway approximately 18 months after she was hired. Liu, who was on a leave of absence following her pregnancy, was informed that her position had been eliminated during a downsizing that followed a merger of her

Tomlinson v. Qualcomm, Inc., 97 Cal. App. 4th 934 (2002)

While working on a reduced schedule as part of a family leave of absence, Lona Tomlinson was selected for layoff and terminated. Tomlinson asserted that her termination violated the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2, based on her contention that employees who are on family leave are “immune” from layoff