Do I have a potential wrongful termination case?

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?

 

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.

 

I agree. IF the termination were in retaliation for the PTO policy complaint, that would be illegal, but it seems unlikely.

 

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.

 

The problem is you usually don't know about an employer until after you are working there.

 

The Amen Chorus sings: AMEN!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?