Plaintiff broke his finger on or about March 23, 2010. Plaintiff's doctor placed Plaintiff off work from approximately March 26, 2010 through April 18, 2010. Initially, the injured area was cast. A week later, Plaintiff's doctor determined that surgery was needed, and pins needed to be inserted into Plaintiff's hand.
April 19, 2010 through June 7, 2010, Plaintiff's doctor released him to do modified duty. Plaintiff's doctor had not released Plaintiff to resume work as a mechanic where he needed to use his fingers and hand to engage in heavy torquing and other work a mechanic has to do, so on or about April 19, 2010, Direct Supervisor, the manager of operations, allowed Plaintiff to work for several weeks doing inventory and then work on a warranty project into May. When the warranty work was done, Direct Supervisor caused Plaintiff to believe he would be able to come back to work once the full restrictions were removed which they expected to be on his next appointment which was June 15, 2010, because the doctor would be on vacation, and that day he could provide proof of the release.
June 15, 2010 Plaintiff's doctor prepared a new doctor's note stating Plaintiff could return to work, full capacity on July 6, 2010. Plaintiff gave this note to Roberts. Roberts said the position was closed, somebody else was hired, and Plaintiff should have tried to see another doctor. Plaintiff said you cannot do that, I looked it up and I have FMLA rights and this is medical leave. Direct Supervisor falsely told Plaintiff the company did not have enough employees for FMLA to apply. Plaintiff said, what can I do to keep my job? Direct Supervisor said that Plaintiff could get a doctor's note releasing him as of June 15, 2010.
June 15, 2010, Plaintiff went back to his doctor and got a second doctor's note, that day, stating he could come back to work at full capacity on June 17, 2010. Plaintiff provided the second note to Direct Supervisor, and began contacting human resources, in an attempt to assert FMLA rights and make sure he could return to his job, but human resources never called Plaintiff back.
June 16, 2010, Direct Supervisor sent Plaintiff a text message stating that Plaintiff had been terminated.
Plaintiff was replaced with a friend of Direct Supervisor on or about July 11, 2010.FMLA VIOLATION CASE RESULT: SETTLEMENT OF OVER $100,000 AND REEMPLOYMENT BY THE COMPANY WHO WRONGFULLY TERMINATED THE MECHANIC
In 1999 Plaintiff missed a few days to care for his mother who is bedridden with emphysema, and receiving oxygen 24 hours a day. In 2000, Plaintiff had to miss more days to do so. When missing time from work to care for his mother, Plaintiff had to feed his mother, give her approximately 9 pills twice a day, and empty her portable toilet and bed pans. During 2000, Plaintiff did not miss an excessive amount of time to care for his mother, and believes that from February until his termination he missed approximately three days.
As early as 1998, Plaintiff's supervisors, Controller Until Becoming Director of Operations, and Supervisor 2 were aware of Plaintiff's mother's medical condition, and Plaintiff's need to care for her especially on days when other care givers were not available.
On or about July 1, 2000, Plaintiff’s manager told the Plaintiff that he had to do what was good for the company, and in so doing he had to warn Plaintiff about his absences even though Plaintiff’s manager knew that the absences were because Plaintiff had to care for his mother's serious medical condition.
On or about August 7, 2000, Plaintiff's employment was terminated because he had accumulated too many points for being absent and tardy. A significant number of these points resulted from Plaintiff having to miss work to care for his mother's serious medical condition during 2000. Were it not for the time he missed due to his mother's serious medical condition he would not have accumulated enough points to be terminated. At the time of Plaintiff's termination he argued this but the Defendant insisted on discriminatorily counting against him the time Plaintiff took off to care for his mother that should have been excused under the Family Care Leave Act.
On or about May 20, 1994, the Plaintiff became employed by the Defendant on a full-time basis as a dietary aid. Later in her employment, the Plaintiff was promoted to dietary manager earning $13.50 per hour plus medical and dental benefits. At the time of the Plaintiff's termination of employment, from the Defendant, she was working at the Defendant's facility in Hayward, California.
On or about December if 1998, the Plaintiff began a bleeding problem in her reproductive organs. On or about March 22, 1999, the Plaintiff showed Employer’s Business Manager a doctor's note stating that the Plaintiff had to have 7 days of bed rest beginning on or about March 23, 1999 because she was anemic. At this time, the Plaintiff explained to Employer’s Business Manager Plaintiff was having persistent bleeding in her vaginal area and that her doctor was contemplating giving her a hysterectomy. However, the Plaintiff's doctor wanted to see if the bleeding would stop if the Plaintiff had complete bed rest for a month. On March 22, 1999, the Plaintiff left Defendant's facility administrator, the doctor's note stating that the Plaintiff needed to be on leave for a week. On March 23, 1999, the Plaintiff spoke to Defendant’s facility administrator and said that her doctor was contemplating giving her a hysterectomy, was taking her off work, and she thought she might be off work for approximately six weeks. The facility administrator’s attitude was angry and he stated that the state was coming in any day for a survey.
On or about March 30, 1999, the Plaintiff still was not feeling well and so she spoke to a specialist. The Plaintiff then communicated to the Defendant's facility administrator that the Plaintiff was still having bleeding problems and that she had spoken to a specialist about this. Employer’s Facility Manager said I had no idea it would be like this. How long will you be out? The Plaintiff told Employer’s Facility Manager that she had to have a hysterectomy and she expected to be out for two to six weeks.
On or about April 1, 1999, the Plaintiff saw a specialist who told her that she definitely needed a hysterectomy surgery, but that her blood count was so low because of her persistent bleeding that the surgery could not be performed right away. The specialist then prescribed complete bed rest in an effort to stop the bleeding so that the surgery could be done.
On or about April 1, 1999, the Plaintiff spoke to Employer’s Business Manager and told her that she was ill, the doctor had scheduled her for a hysterectomy surgery on April 5, 1999, and that the surgery could not be done until April 5th because the Plaintiff was bleeding too much, and needed complete bed rest for a week in an effort for the bleeding to stop.
On April 5th the Plaintiff's blood count was still very low and so the surgery could not be done until April 13th. On or about April 6, 1999, the Plaintiff called Employer’s Facility Manager and told him that her blood count was low and that the surgery was postponed until the 13th.
Right before the surgery was scheduled to occur, as the Plaintiff was leaving to go to her surgery, on or about April 13th, the Plaintiff received a letter notifying her she was terminated from the Defendant on April 9th and her final check was enclosed.
Upon arriving for her surgery on April 13th, the surgical doctor told the Plaintiff that she was too upset and her blood pressure was too high to go for her surgery and be on anesthesia then. This is a very dramatic example of how an employer can cause severe emotional distress and physical pain by their treatment towards an employee. The Plaintiff's surgery was then postponed until May 6, 1999. The Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the Defendant's termination of the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff has physically suffered for far longer, and taken longer to recover, then the Plaintiff would have had she been able to have her surgery on April 13th and recover thereafter.FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CASE RESULT: A quick, mediated settlement of $123,220 in 2014 dollars for an employee who had little lost wages.
On or about January of 2004 to early February of 2004, Plaintiff spoke to an employee in human resources, about a health condition Plaintiff had that she believed was asthma.
By February 6, 2004, Plaintiff was diagnosed with asthma. By this time, it was noted by her doctor that Plaintiff had 50% of her lung capacity and had severe difficulty breathing. Around February 6, 2004, Plaintiff tendered a note to Defendant stating she was disabled from 2-9-04 until 2-13-04, was seen by the doctor 2-6-04, could return to work 2-16-04, and she should avoid going to La Mirada for 4 weeks (Defendant's facility that aggravated Plaintiff's asthma, due to dust, during a training).
On or about March 24, 2004, Plaintiff was disciplined for being absent due to her asthma even though she had doctor's excuses. Plaintiff discussed this discipline with Employer’s branch manager, the new branch manager, who gave her the discipline. Employer’s branch manager clearly understood Plaintiff was suffering from severe asthma that caused these absences, required medical care, and had significantly reduced her ability to breath.
On or about April 19, 2004 Plaintiff was terminated due to absences that should have been excused because they were disability related, and also should have been excused under the Family Care Leave Act.CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS LEAVE ACT (CFRA) VIOLATION CASE RESULT: A confidential settlement was reached with the assistance of a mediator.
On or about November 3, 2013 Plaintiff fell at home and sustained injuries that included a concussion. On or about November 3, 2013 Plaintiff went to the emergency room for treatment and was prescribed two medications one of which prevented her from driving. At the time her vision was blurry. The emergency room gave her a form stating she was not to work for two days from 11-3-13 onward.
On or about November 4, 2013, Plaintiff told Charge Director of Nursing she had a concussion, needed to be out three days, and would bring paperwork pertaining to the leave.
November 5, 2013 Plaintiff went back to the emergency room due to symptoms from her fall. She was prescribed additional medication. At that point a doctor put her off work for 30 days.
Plaintiff informed an employee in medical records at Defendants' Montebello location, where she worked, about her treatment and prescribed leave described in Paragraph 11 of this FMLA violation lawsuit. The medical records employee said she would page the employer’s administrator. He never got on the telephone. Plaintiff is informed and believes the message was transmitted to the administrator.
On or about November 9, 2013 Plaintiff went into work at Defendants and brought in the November 3, 2013 and November 5, 2013 doctors' notes taking her out of work until December 5, 2013. During this encounter, Plaintiff spoke to the administrator and said she was taking a leave. She was told to talk to somebody in payroll who was supposed to give Plaintiff paperwork for the leave. After meeting with persons at Defendants Plaintiff thought she was on an approved leave until December 4, 2013.
On or about December 4, 2013 Plaintiff showed up at Defendants, to work, after she received a December 4, 2013 release to work note from her doctor. The administrator told Plaintiff he did not know what to do and he could not hold Plaintiff's position open. Plaintiff's employment was terminated by December 4, 2013.
Plaintiff's absence from work November 4, 2013 through on or about December 3, 2013 were due to serious medical conditions Plaintiff treated for, she experienced symptoms as a result of, had notes from doctors taking her out of work for this period due to these symptoms and treatment, and the leave should have been an allowed California Family Rights Act absence. Instead, Plaintiff was not restored to comparable employment, her position was given away while she was on leave, and her employment was terminated when she returned from the leave.FAILURE TO PROVIDE FMLA RIGHTS CASE RESULT: This case is still pending, and the employer claims it is subject to binding arbitration.