Do I have a potential wrongful termination case?

If the jury is convinced that one of the reasons motivating the termination was the sex of the employee (including being gay, lesbian, etc) then the employer cannot escape liability by citing some other nondiscriminatory factor. But the key is whether that illegal motivation was present in the first place. If the employee says it was and the employer says it wasn't and offers some other nondiscriminatory reason the jury may well believe that illegal discrimination was not at play and find for the employer.

But so far I'm not seeing anything here that suggests federal laws on employment discrimination were at issue. Family status is not protected under federal law. However, California law is more expansive, protecting race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of any person. So under California law, marital status is protected. Whether the but for standard used by the federal courts is used by California courts is something I've not researched.

 

Yes, marital status is protected. But from what I remember your marital status wasn't the issue it was your living location.

 

That still doesn't make it a wrongful termination.

 

Why would they make the request and have to spend more money paying you if you were already living where they wanted you to live?

 

Got some evidence that you were fired for your marital status?

Got some evidence that it was for ANY reason other than the one they gave you? (Geographic)

 

You obviously don't understand what case law is. When the Supreme Court says that discriminating on the bases of a woman or a man having young children falls under Title 7 that is the law.

 

You obviously don't understand the case you are hanging your hat on. That is NOT what the court said.

And we are still waiting for the OP to provide ANY evidence that the reason for her termination was anything but the reason the OP gave.

 

That has nothing to do with whether one has children or not.

 

The Supreme Court said that it is sex discrimination under Title 7 to hire men with small children but not hire women with small children. They said that it is sex discrimination under Title 7 for a male employee to be harassed in the workplace by other men. They have been expanding the definition of sex discrimination from the original legislative intent.

OP says that:

That is all she needs and the company history to file a Title 7 claim.

What reason did OP give? She said her performance was better than others.

 

The court did not, however, say that whether you did or did not have children was protected outside of gender considerations.

The children are grown IF SHE HAS ANY AT ALL. Therefore she does not have small children.

The OP has no children.

That is NOT hiring one person over an other because they do or do not have children, and if both the OP and the person who is hired are women that is not a gender consideration at all.

The company gave a reason; they wanted someone in the city of Los Angeles proper. THAT IS A LEGAL REASON.

 

The system requires that I post in order to re-open the thread. So I'm posting.

The OP hypothesizes that MAYBE she wasn't hired because the MAYBE company was afraid that MAYBE she would have children in the future.She provides no evidence to support that supposition. She provides nothing to suggest that the company's hiring decision had anything to do with having or not having children.

The successful applicant either does not have children or they are grown. The OP does not know which. So in terms of family status, they stand on equal ground. Either neither has children, or neither has children at home.

EVEN IF the statute Welkin is hanging his had on said what he claims it does, which it does not, it would not be applicable in this instance. Welkin's statute related to gender considerations. There are not gender considerations here. No one is questioning that it would be sex discrimination to refuse to hire women with small children if they will hire men with small children. We all agree that this is the case. But that is not what is happening here. See both above and below.

The reason the OP was provided, a geographic reason, is a legal reason.

All of this has already been said. For some reason

Now, have at it. You wanted the thread open, it's open.