Do I have a potential wrongful termination case?

L

LauraSummers

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
Hello,

I was a high performing sales rep of a medical device company. In February, before the covid madness really heated up, I was suddenly fired. No reason was given except for "managerial decision". The only thing I can think of is that the job entailed a lot of travel and I had been in process of trying to buy a house around November/December with my boyfriend (soon to be husband). I don't know if they thought I was going to buy a house, get married, get knocked up and not be as good at my job but the owner had made a comment about he was disappointed to hear I was buying a house in the suburbs and that he thought I should move to LA proper. This was also constantly echoed by my manager. Keep in mind my numbers were better than all of the other outside reps, I was performing very well! I found out they hired someone two days after I was fired that is older with grown children of she has any children at all. A few other things: I also brought their PTO policies to the HR departments attention in that the PTO policies were not legal in CA. They are a multi state company, I was their first California employee so I brought this issue up very gently and respectfully. My boss then proceeds to tell me that they had to hire an attorney for 2k to write up a California addendum. I also brought up the fact that the car allowance was not sufficient to cover the actual miles that were covered in my territory and that normally companies give a by mile rate or a car allowance with a gas card.

Do you think I have a case or should I just drop it?
 
The only thing you've posted that would give you even a marginal case is your telling them that PTO policies were illegal, and even that is such a weak case, if it even is one at all (and I'm by no means sure that it is) that IMO it's not worth bothering with.

Just out of curiosity, what was illegal about the PTO policies?
 
cbg said:
The only thing you've posted that would give you even a marginal case is your telling them that PTO policies were illegal, and even that is such a weak case, if it even is one at all (and I'm by no means sure that it is) that IMO it's not worth bothering with.



Just out of curiosity, what was illegal about the PTO policies?
Click to expand...

They had a use it or lose it policy in place which from my understanding is not legal in CA
 
cbg said:
The only thing you've posted that would give you even a marginal case is your telling them that PTO policies were illegal, and even that is such a weak case, if it even is one at all (and I'm by no means sure that it is) that IMO it's not worth bothering with.
Click to expand...

I agree. IF the termination were in retaliation for the PTO policy complaint, that would be illegal, but it seems unlikely.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
That they corrected once you told them about it, correct? I doubt that is the reason they terminated you. You may have saved them way more than $2k.

I don't see a wrongful termination case.
Click to expand...
zddoodah said:
I agree. IF the termination were in retaliation for the PTO policy complaint, that would be illegal, but it seems unlikely.
Click to expand...
thank you for the honesty. I've kind of dropped it but my friend said something about whistleblowing and the timing of my termination was three days after I was supposed to come back from a vacation (that was canceled due to covid19). They interviewed my replacement the day I would have left on my vacation . I agree it would probably be a stretch of a case but thanks again for the input.
 
Last edited:
adjusterjack said:
Here's a couple of "nevers" for you.

Never tell your employer or coworkers your personal plans.

Never tell your employer how to run his business.
Click to expand...

I told my employer what was illegal.
adjusterjack said:
Here's a couple of "nevers" for you.

Never tell your employer or coworkers your personal plans.

Never tell your employer how to run his business.
Click to expand...


I'll never... work for a company like this one again. Many messed up things happened there. This was the only slightly illegal thing.
 
adjusterjack said:
Here's a couple of "nevers" for you.

Never tell your employer or coworkers your personal plans.

Never tell your employer how to run his business.
Click to expand...

The Amen Chorus sings: AMEN!
 
LauraSummers said:
The only thing I can think of is that the job entailed a lot of travel and I had been in process of trying to buy a house around November/December with my boyfriend (soon to be husband). I don't know if they thought I was going to buy a house, get married, get knocked up and not be as good at my job but the owner had made a comment about he was disappointed to hear I was buying a house in the suburbs and that he thought I should move to LA proper. This was also constantly echoed by my manager. Keep in mind my numbers were better than all of the other outside reps, I was performing very well! I found out they hired someone two days after I was fired that is older with grown children of she has any children at all.
Click to expand...

Considering what our Supreme Court just handed down in an opinion on a civil right act of 1964 title 7 case protecting homosexuals and transgender, I would consult with a civil rights attorney. Of course I'm not suggesting that you are either but the opinion and the cases that were cited included a case where a company would not hire mothers with young children in favor for women with grown children or men with young children.

And it wouldn't matter if there were other reasons why you may have been fired because if only one reason is a but-for-cause sexual decimation it creates liability for the company.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
 
Last edited:
welkin said:
And it wouldn't matter if there were other reasons why you may have been fired
Click to expand...

Actually, it does. Even if a plaintiff can meet his/her initial burden, if the defendant can show that there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the firing, then the defendant will be entitled to summary judgment.

Also, the type of attorney to consult with is an employment law attorney, not a civil rights attorney.
 
There is zero evidence, other than the OP's assumption, that her family status had anything to do with it. The manager was disappointed in her geographic choice of homes, which is not in any way illegally discriminatory, but there was nothing at all said about her having or not having children. That was entirely in the OP's mind.
 
zddoodah said:
Actually, it does. Even if a plaintiff can meet his/her initial burden, if the defendant can show that there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the firing, then the defendant will be entitled to summary judgment.

Also, the type of attorney to consult with is an employment law attorney, not a civil rights attorney.
Click to expand...
If you haven't read the opinion then I suggest that you do. Because the but-for-cause transcends all other causes and the employer can't use those causes to avoided liability.
 
cbg said:
There is zero evidence, other than the OP's assumption, that her family status had anything to do with it. The manager was disappointed in her geographic choice of homes, which is not in any way illegally discriminatory, but there was nothing at all said about her having or not having children. That was entirely in the OP's mind.
Click to expand...
But that and the company's history is all it takes to file a Title 7 suit . As I already posted, the company cannot use any other cause to defeat a sex discrimination suit under Title 7.

Read the Supreme Court's opinion. As someone in HR it will make you wonder where the law is going or has already gone.
 
Welkin, all I can say is, with your mis-understanding of how the discrimination laws work, don't ever try to get a job in HR.

How about you post a link to either the California or the Federal law that makes children/no children a protected characteristic.

How about you post any actual evidence provided in the OP's posts that support her contention as to what she was fired for.

And don't assume what cases I have read and not read.
 
1) The parties concede that the term "sex" in 1964 referred to the biological distinctions between male and female. And "the ordinary meaning of 'because of' is 'by reason of' or 'on account of,' " University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U. S. 338, 350. That term incorporates the but-for causation standard, id., at 346, 360, which, for Title VII, means that a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment action.
Click to expand...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

Now let that sink in. When the Supreme Court interprets a law I don't need to cite another law to satisfy your blowing smoke. The point is that an employer cannot use any other factor to justify the denial or termination of employment in a Title 7 case.

If you read this case:

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 US 542 - Supreme Court 1971 - Google Scholar

and you then read the recent Supreme Court Case linked to above you may actually learn something.
 
I'm still waiting for the Federal or California law that makes having or not having children a protected category, even if we assume that this was the reason for the termination (and there is no evidence of it in the post).

If it's not a protected category, then your entire argument fails on its face.

So, where's the law protecting children/no children?
 
Isn't marital status protected in California? Can't be discriminated against for being divorced, single, married etc. forgive me if I'm incorrect here. I'm clearly not a legal expert.
cbg said:
I'm still waiting for the Federal or California law that makes having or not having children a protected category, even if we assume that this was the reason for the termination (and there is no evidence of it in the post).

If it's not a protected category, then your entire argument fails on its face.

So, where's the law protecting children/no children?
Click to expand...
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top