On April of 1997, the employee's doctor wanted to extend the Employee's leave until May 2, 1997, but on or about April 17, 1997, Bell sent the Employee a letter stating that the Employee could not extend her leave, or receive time off for the Employee's psychiatric, depression. After being diagnosed with depression, the Employee asked Bell for reasonable accommodations including starting at 9:30 A.M. instead of 8:30 A.M. because the depression prevented the Employee from having a normal sleep pattern. However, Bell refused to give the Employee this reasonable accommodation.
On or about March 31, 1998, the Employee's doctor once again required the Employee to go on a leave because of her depression. On this same day, the Employee left a voice mail message for Bell stating that the Employee went to see her doctor for depression, the Employee was not sleeping because of her depression, and she was not well at all. In this voice mail message, the Employee also mentioned that was prescribed medication for the depression and that she was severely depressed. In this message, the Employee also stated that she wanted to be off for a week because of, amongst other things, her sleep disturbance and the medications she was on.
On or about 4-1-98, Bell called the Employee back in response to the Employee's voice mail message described in the paragraph above. During this conversation, Bell said that she wanted to see a doctor's note from the Employee, and the Employee repeated that her medication was out of control.
On or about 4-1-98 or 4-2-98, the Employee's boy-friend hand delivered a doctor's note to Bell stating that the Employee was depressed, under the doctor's care, and was referred to a therapist. Soon after this note was brought in, Bell called and acknowledged her receipt of this note.
By on or about 4-5-98, the Employee's depression began causing her physical manifestations including a viral infection because based upon the Employee's depression she was unable to bath, properly groom herself, or take care of herself. On or about 4-5-98, and also on 4-6-98, the Employee notified Bell of these developments. On or about 4-8-98, the Employee's doctor treated her and wrote that the Employee would not be able to return to work until 4-13-98 and/or until her fever subsided.
On or about 4-8-98, the Employee's boy-friend took in the 4-8-98 doctor's note stating that the Employee could return to work on 4-13-98 if her fever had went down.
On or about Friday, 4-10-98, Bell called the Employee and said that the Employee's doctor's note did not excuse the Employee, she had been out too long, and should be expecting termination papers. As of 4-10-98, the Employee was planning to return to work on Monday 4-13-98.
CASE RESULTS FOR TERMINATION OF DEPRESSED EMPLOYEE: This case went to trial.
On or about July 4, 1996, Employee began employment at the Defendant. On or about October 19, 2009, Employee was terminated from his employment with Defendant where Employee last worked as a paramedic. After firing Employee, Defendant has repeatedly failed to reinstate Employee. By December 28, 2009, the DMV had clearly ruled that Employee could drive, but Defendant continued to refuse to reinstate Employee.
While off duty, on or about May 24, 2009, Employee was involved in a motor vehicle accident while on vacation. Employee lost consciousness due to what doctors believe was dehydration after spending the day in the desert riding a motorcycle. Employee took time off after this accident. The time off from work was considered leave under the California Family Rights Leave Act. However, on or about September 6, 2009, Employee had a seizure. September 10, 2009, Employee told Defendant's general manager Rosemead about the seizure. September 14, 2009, Employee was cleared by his doctor to come back to work, but Defendant did not permit Employee back.
Rosemead decided, by October 19, 2009, that Defendant would not accommodate Employee by holding his position open any longer while Defendant thought that the DMV had to certify that Employee could still drive. Employee contends that this was actual and perceived disability discrimination, a failure to reasonably accommodate Employee by holding his position open while the DMV determined if Employee could drive. October 25, 2009, Employee had a hearing to determine if he was eligible to drive and on December 28, 2009, the DMV issued a determination that Employee was. Prior to the determination Employee could drive, on October 19, 2009, Employee told Rosemead that his licenses were current. On October 20, 2009, Employee told Rosemead once again that he had checked with the DMV, Rosemead needed to call them, that his licenses were current, and it was premature to terminate Employee due to Rosemead's assumption Employee's licenses would be revoked because he had a seizure and/or risk of having another seizure. Rosemead indicated that the company was sticking with their termination decision.
Employee attempted to get his job back, multiple times, after October 19, 2009, and after December 28, 2009. Employee even filed DFEH charges and made it clear that he wanted his job back. Despite being licensed and scrutinized by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, and their determination Employee was fit to hold a commercial driver's license and drive an ambulance, Defendant contends Employee is not fit to perform such a job. Employee contends that Defendant's assumptions constitute discrimination and a failure to employ based upon a perceived or actual disability.DISABILITY CASE RESULT: SUBSTANTIAL MONETARY RECOVERY FOR DISABLED DRIVER
On or about October 11, 2005, Employee had an accident at work that caused several fractures in his hands. Employee filed a worker's compensation claim and had medical treatment. At the conclusion of his treatment, it was determined that Employee had lost grip strength in his right wrist of at least 20%. Additionally, the Employee had a sensory loss in his right wrist. This caused the Employee to be rated as having a loss of right upper extremity impairment. Employee experienced similar problems with his left wrist causing him to be rated as having a left upper extremity impairment. It was determined that these impairments caused the Employee an inability to engage in very heavy lifting as well as repetitive grasping, torquing, pinching, pushing, pulling, or prolonged fine manipulation. The Employee was eventually rated as having a permanent disability in the worker's compensation system, but returned to work on or about February of 2006.
On or about June or July of 2006, the Employee's hands gave out one day while working. Without any real medical help, they got better quickly through non-use.
On or about March 25, 2007, the Employee had to grab a rope to manipulate a pipe. Although when the Employee returned to work during February of 2006, he had restrictions whereby he was not supposed to lift anything over 30 pounds, and the Employee told his foreman Maywood that he did not want to manipulate this pipe that must have weighed between 100-125 pounds on March 25th, Dave told the Employee "Do it, or go home." On other occasions, Maywood had also made trouble for the Employee when the Employee protested trying to lift anything more than thirty pounds. On March 25, 2007, once the Employee was done manipulating the pipe, his hands were swollen and puffy. The Employee told Maywood after approximately 9:30 A.M. Defendant's safety man, Downey, then told The Employee that if he went to the doctor, he would probably be there all day. The Employee explained that he had experienced this problem the year before and there wasn't anything the doctor could do, but prescribe rest to the hands. The Employee stated that he thought the problem would pass if he stopped working that day, and he would be ok the next day. Downey told the employee ok, I'll see you when you get back.
On or about March 26th or 27th, 2007 the employee got a message from Lenny Pasadena saying report to the business office in Orange, and don't come to work. When the employee reported there he was told he was being terminated for falsifying an injury report, and that the employee was not hurt. The employee alleges that his official date of termination is March 28, 2007, and due to his schedule he was not actually permitted to work after going home on or about March 25, 2007.
The employee did not falsify an injury report, and contends that had he never reported the injury on March 25, 2007 he would not have been terminated. The employee further alleges that Danny Lomita, management, was angry about the employee reporting his injuries including the one that resulted in the worker's compensation claim being filed. In fact, he questioned why the employee had filed the worker's compensation claim being that the employee caused the accident by dropping something.
Besides Defendant terminating the employee, and refusing to honor his 30 pound lifting restrictions, or need for accommodation when his hands flared up, the employee alleges that Defendant retaliated against him and otherwise discriminated against him due to his disability and filing of a worker's compensation claim by laying the employee off when he first went back after his injury from approximately March of 2006 until June of 2006 when nobody else was laid off.DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CASE RESULT: Substantial settlement to wrongfully terminated Long Beach welder.
On or about May of 2002, the employee became ill due to a Graves hyperthyroidism which she has had since age 11 in 1989. She was having to miss approximately two days a week due to this condition during part of May.
On or about June 7, 2002, the employee was put on Family Medical Leave by Defendant. It was understood that the employee needed a radiation treatment on June 26th or 27th and after the treatment she would have to be isolated for three days. Moreover, it was understood between the employee and Glendale that employee was very ill with this condition. After the radiation treatment the employee called Glendale, a human resource manager of Defendant and explained that the treatment had gone well, but it was discovered that her tyroid had gotten worse and the employee would need another treatment in 3-4 months.
From late June of 2002, the employee spoke to Glendale at least once a month describing those things about the employee's disability that are mentioned in Paragraph 13 of this disability discrimination lawsuit, describing how the employee was feeling, and her sense of well being. On August 8, 2002, the employee's doctor extended her leave to November 1, 2002. The employee faxed Glendale a doctor's note to this effect, and Glendale said she was putting it in the employee's personnel file. On or about September 4, 2002, the employee told Glendale that the employee's doctor was not releasing the employee because he did not believe the employee could perform a full-time job. After September 6, 2002, the employee said she needed to know if she would be able to return back to her job. Glendale told the employee that Glendale would have to talk to the President, Chatsworth. When the employee's disability was extended past November 1, 2002, the employee once again faxed the note to Glendale.
In early December of 2002, the employee called Glendale and told her that the employee's doctor would release the employee 1-1-03 and she could come back 1-2-03. Glendale said she would speak to Chatsworth, the President, and get back to the employee. Glendale never did.
On or about January 2, 2003, the employee called Glendale and said she was ready to return back to work, and needed a status as to when she could do so.
On or about January 4, 2003, Glendale called the employee and told the employee that Glendale did not want the employee to wait on the Defendant because there would not any positions available. The employee contends that it was at this time that she was terminated, and Defendant failed to reinstate her after her disability leave.
The employee's thyroid problem has been on going since 1989. It causes the employee's heart to race, her to have high blood pressure, to be unable to stay still, and caused her to lose 30 pounds in 2002. The employee contends this is a physical disability affecting major organs such as her heart and tyroid, and affecting multiple body systems such as The employee's blood flow and circulation.
The employee alleges that at all times herein mentioned Glendale was aware that the employee was suffered from a thyroid condition since the employee was a child, and that this condition disabled the employee. Additionally, in June the employee used the word disability when speaking to Glendale. The employee explained to Glendale that she was going on disability leave. Furthermore, the medical documentation given to the employee stated that the employee was disabled and on disability leave. Even more, the employee had to leave work early in May when she was not feeling well. She would explain to Glendale that she was dizzy, tired, throwing up, felt her heart racing 100 miles per hour, and had huge head aches. Glendale also knew the employee could not drive home and co-workers had to drive her home on these occasions because Glendale was too dizzy and tired to drive home. Once on leave, the employee told Glendale the employee had to stay at home and do nothing. The employee was basically confined to bed rest during the time she was out of work with Defendant. Glendale also was told Glendale, after her radiation treatment, that The employee was too weak and tired from radiation to work or do much of anything but rest.
The employee contends that she was fired January 2, 2003 and Defendant failed to reinstate her. The employee contends that it was a reasonable accommodation to allow the employee to be out of work for approximately six months to undergo radiation treatment and other necessary treatment for her disability.CASE RESULT FOR FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE DISABILITY: $160,525 SETTLEMENT IN 2014 DOLLARS