pregnancy discrimination

Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Servs., Inc., 97 Cal. App. 5th 822 (2023)

Eunices Argueta worked as an agent in the import department of the employer, a freight operations company, reporting to Dzung Nguyen whom she claimed had sexually harassed her. A jury returned a defense verdict, and Argueta filed a motion for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres, 2023 WL 2534998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)

Gabriela Lopez worked as shelter manager for a non-profit organization that provides services to women and children who are victims of domestic violence. In September 2016, Lopez gave birth to a child; by December 17, 2016, Lopez had received the full four months of pregnancy-disability leave required by statute, including

We invite you to review our newly-posted October 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Malloy v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 4298371 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)

Eleanor Malloy began working remotely for her employer (which was located in Orange County) at her home in Los Angeles County in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Malloy filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging pregnancy discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).  In response,

Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc., 27 Cal. App. 5th 1181 (2018)

Samantha Martinez, a sandwich maker and cashier, sued Eatlite (the owner of a Subway store) for employment discrimination in violation of public policy, gender and pregnancy discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations in the workplace, violation of the California Constitution and negligent supervision and retention. A jury found in favor of Martinez

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

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

Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2011)

Gina Holmes sued her employer for harassment based on pregnancy, retaliation, constructive discharge, violation of the right to privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the defendants with respect to the claims for harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge, and a jury decided against Holmes with respect

Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Found., 173 Cal. App. 4th 740 (2009)

Dewandra Johnson, who was employed as a counselor for this charitable foundation, alleged that she had been terminated while and because she was pregnant. Johnson also alleged that her supervisor (Raquel Jiminez) had a discriminatory animus against pregnant and heterosexual women and that Jiminez gave preferential treatment to gay and lesbian