Wrongful Termination News
Former ESPN Commentator Sues for Wrongful Termination
Los Angeles, CA: A former sports commentator with ESPN known for his knowledge of tennis launched a wrongful termination lawsuit in a California court against his former employer the day before Valentine’s Day this year. At issue is an on-air comment Doug Adler is alleged to have uttered during coverage of the 2017 Australian Open and, in particular use of a word the plaintiff asserts he did not use.
Rather, Adler asserts he used a word with a completely different spelling – and holding a different meaning – but happens to sound similar to the word Adler is accused of uttering.
According to court documents, Adler was covering a tennis match between Venus Williams and Stefanie Voegele. Williams is known for her aggressive style of play and Adler – a former tennis player himself – attempted to describe and capture that aggression. A transcript of the footage is alleged to reveal Adler’s quote: “: "[Voegele] misses her first serve and Venus is all over her. You see Venus move in, and put the guerrilla effect on ... charging her."
In defending his comments, Adler noted the word ‘guerrilla’ has been used previously in tennis circles to describe aggressive play, and the plaintiff asserts that is the word he used in the context of his remarks. However, ‘guerrilla’ sounds similar to ‘gorilla’ when spoken. Many observers, it has been reported, assumed Adler had used the word ‘gorilla’ and had uttered a racial slur against Williams.
The day following the match, according to court documents associated with the wrongful termination lawsuit, Adler was forced to undertake an on-air apology.
Two days after the match, Adler alleges he was terminated from a job he held since 2008. Adler alleges wrongful termination, noting in his lawsuit that ‘guerrilla tennis’ is a term which has been used previously in at least two previous instances. One example cited is a television ad produced on behalf of Nike in the 1990s featuring former tennis pros Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi entitled ‘Guerrilla Tennis,’ where the two were shown participating in impromptu tennis matches in the streets of New York City.
“Obviously, plaintiff saw that commercial many times and the phrase became widely used by those who actually understood tennis vernacular and followed the sport closely,” the lawsuit claims. Adler is a former All-American tennis player with the University of Southern California.
“Plaintiff is now known as ‘racist,’ the person who called Venus Williams ‘a gorilla,’ and who is now persona-non-grata in all professional tennis circles. For something he never said,” his wrongful termination lawsuit states.
Defendants named in the wrongful termination lawsuit include ESPN Productions Inc., senior vice president of production Mark Gross and vice president of production Jamie Reynolds. Adler alleges wrongful termination, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Damages were not specified.
The California wrongful termination lawsuit is Doug Adler v. ESPN Productions Inc. et al., Case No. BC650526, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
Snapchat Faces California Wrongful Termination Claims
Los Angeles, CA: Snapchat is the latest tech company to face a lawsuit, but this time the plaintiff alleges wrongful termination, claiming he was fired for alerting superiors to potential misrepresentation on the part of the company. The California wrongful termination lawsuit was filed in January 2017, and claims the company purposely misled investors ahead of its initial public offering (IPO) to inflate Snapchat's valuation. The plaintiff, Anthony Pompliano, further alleges that Snapchat has since worked to destroy his career.
Vanity Fair (1/6/17) reports Pompliano filed his wrongful termination lawsuit against Snapchat alleging he told superiors about Snapchat's activity, including allegedly misrepresenting growth metrics. Pompliano was hired by Snapchat in August 2015. He was hired from Facebook. He alleges, however, that he was given false information by Snapchat when he was hired.
"Driven by its fierce rivalry with Facebook—a spurned suitor turned keen competitor—Snapchat fraudulently induced Mr. Pompliano away from Facebook to run Snapchat's new user growth and engagement team by falsely representing to him, among other things, the Company's growth," the lawsuit alleges. Pompliano worked only three weeks for Snapchat.
According to court documents, during his time at the company Pompliano learned that some of the metrics he had been given when the company recruited him were false. He then alerted Snapchat's Vice President of Finance about the misrepresentations and although some of the company's superiors reportedly agreed with him, Pompliano was fired. He alleges he was only hired by Snapchat from Facebook so Snapchat could obtain Facebook's proprietary information. Pompliano claims he refused to breach any agreements he had with Facebook.
"Snapchat's leadership saw Mr. Pompliano as an impediment to their planned IPO because he refused to turn a blind eye to Snapchat's misrepresentations," the lawsuit alleges. "Indeed, Snapchat accurately perceived that Mr. Pompliano would 'blow the whistle' should Snapchat continue to misrepresent its [redacted] to the public, advertisers, prospective employees, private investors, or in connection with its planned IPO."
In addition to firing him, Snapchat apparently "sought to destroy his career and reputation" by making "false representations" about the reasons why he was fired, including stating he is incompetent. Pompliano's lawsuit seeks to prevent Snap Inc, maker of the Snapchat app, from misrepresenting the reason for his firing.
Snapchat told Vanity Fair the allegations have no merit and were made up by a "disgruntled former employee."
The lawsuit is Pompliano v. Snap, Inc., et al. case number BC645641, in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
Apela a la sentencia: No más terminaciones de contrato injustas para los trabajadores de almacenes
Los Angeles, CA. Una corporación importante de medios de comunicación obtuvo un regalo temprano de Navidad el pasado 20 de diciembre cuando un panel del tres-jueces junto con el segundo Tribunal de Apelación en California revirtió la decisión de una corte inferior que afirmaba que Time Warner Cable Services LLC era culpable de terminación injusta de contrato y discriminación por discapacidad.
Un tribunal inferior había evaluado una sentencia de 3.4 millones de dólares contra Time Warner con respecto al despido de un empleado de almacén por uso de drogas correspondientes a su tratamiento médico. La demandante, Patricia Hancock, fue despedida de su cargo en el almacén debido a la supuesta violación de la política de drogas de su empleador. Hancock había alegado la terminación injustificada porque la droga que ella tomaba para el dolor, hydrocodone, le había sido prescrita previamente por el doctor. Hancock también alegó que su empleador no había logrado integrar de manera efectiva su discapacidad en el área de trabajo. Un tribunal inferior estuvo de acuerdo con la demandante, y emitió una sentencia de $3.4 millones contra Time Warner.
Sin embargo, el panel de apelación revocó la decisión del tribunal inferior porque, a su juicio, el acusado no era suficientemente consciente de que su empleado había sufrido una lesión incapacitante y, por lo tanto, no podía ser considerado responsable de una terminación ilícita de contrato basada en la discriminación por discapacidad, como afirmaba la demandante.
La corte de apelaciones determinó que Hancock no había informado adecuadamente a su empleador sobre el alcance de su lesión, tal y como la tenía mientras trabajaba en un almacén de Time Warner.
"El empleado no puede esperar que el empleador lea su mente y sepa que él secretamente quería un tratamiento en particular debido a su lesión y luego demandar al empleador por no proporcionarlo", afirmó el fallo del panel de apelación. "Cualquier inferencia extraída de la evidencia debe ser un producto de la lógica y razón, no de la especulación ni de conjeturas."
Según los documentos de la corte relacionados con el juicio por despido injustificado de California, Hancock sufrió una lesión en la espalda baja mientras movía palés pesados ??en un almacén de Time Warner. Esto fue en agosto de 2011. El tribunal inferior determinó que un supervisor de almacén que había ordenado cajas adicionales para los palets (y que, por lo tanto, aumentó el peso que invariablemente llevó a la lesión de la demandante) no aconsejó a Hancock el llenar un informe de accidente, para luego llevárselo a un médico.
Sin embargo, de acuerdo con los registros de la corte, la demandante no informó nunca al supervisor sobre su necesidad de recibir atención médica - la demandante tampoco pidió regresar a casa en ningún momento.
De acuerdo con la demanda de despido injustificado, la demandante experimentó un dolor cada vez mayor al regresar a casa más tarde ese día y tomó analgésicos que le habían sido prescritos previamente, después de un procedimiento quirúrgico no relacionado con el accidente en el almacén.
Los registros de la corte revelaron que, al día siguiente, el supervisor del almacén llevó a la demandante a ver a un médico, y a la demandante se le fue autorizado el trabajar. Sin embargo, una prueba de drogas de rutina tomada como parte de la consulta con el médico reveló la presencia de hidrocodona en el sistema de la demandante, relacionado con la medicación que había tomado para el dolor la noche anterior.
Ahí es cuando el problema comenzó, y formó la base de la demanda por despido injustificado. Se solicitó a la demandante la prescripción de la hidrocodona. Hancock indicó que se trataba de un récipe viejo, por lo que no pudo conservar la copia original y necesitaría siete días para que se le enviara el papeleo de reemplazo desde su proveedor de atención médica.
En lugar de colocar a la demandante en una licencia no remunerada hasta que esta asegurase el papeleo para la hidrocodona, un gerente de recursos humanos del acusado despidió a Hancock por violación de la política de drogas.
El tribunal de primera instancia encontró que Time Warner no había logrado integrar la discapacidad de Hancock, y el jurado accedió a una remuneración por daños y perjuicios. La corte de apelaciones revirtió esa decisión, en parte, porque en opinión del panel de apelaciones, Hancock no había informado a su supervisor en el momento que la discapacidad que le sirvió de base para su demanda de despido injustificado en California se debía a su lesión en la espalda.
El panel de apelaciones también determinó que su despido se basó en la incapacidad de la demandante para obtener inmediatamente los documentos de prescripción para la hidrocodona, y no debido a su discapacidad.
"Aunque el jurado descubrió que TWC sabía que Hancock tenía una discapacidad calificada, a la demandada no se le despidió debido a la discapacidad. Como resultado, Time Warner no estuvo involucra en discriminación por discapacidad y no terminó el contrato de Hancock injustamente", afirmó la sentencia del panel de apelaciones.
El caso de terminación de contrato injustificado es “Hancock contra Time Warner Cable Services LLC y otros”, Caso No. B266532, en el Tribunal de Apelación del Estado de California, Segundo Distrito Apelativo.
Appelate Decision: No Wrongful Termination for Warehouse Worker
Los Angeles, CA: A major media corporation got an early Christmas present December 20 when a three-judge panel with the Second Court of Appeal in California reversed a lower court’s ruling holding Time Warner Cable Services LLC (Time Warner, TWC) liable for wrongful termination and disability discrimination.
A lower court had assessed a $3.4 million judgement against Time Warner with regard to the firing of a warehouse employee over prescription drug use. The plaintiff, Patricia Hancock, was let go from her warehouse position due to her alleged violation of her employer’s drug policy. Hancock had alleged wrongful termination because the drug she was taking for pain, hydrocodone had been previously prescribed. Hancock further alleged her employer had failed to accommodate her short-term disability. A lower court agreed, and issued a judgement of $3.4 million against Time Warner.
The appellate panel, however, reversed the decision of the lower court because, in their view, the defendant was not adequately aware their employee had suffered a disabling injury and thus, could not be held responsible for wrongful termination based on discrimination for the plaintiff’s disability.
The appeals court determined that Hancock had failed to adequately inform her employer as to the extent of her injury, sustained as it was in a Time Warner warehouse.
“The employee cannot ‘expect the employer to read his mind and know he secretly wanted a particular accommodation and sue the employer for not providing it,’” the ruling said. “Any inferences drawn from the evidence must be a product of logic and reason, not speculation or conjecture.”
According to court documents associated with the California wrongful termination lawsuit, Hancock sustained an injury to her lower back while moving heavy pallets at a Time Warner warehouse. This was in August, 2011. The lower court determined that a warehouse supervisor who had ordered extra boxes for the pallets (and thus, increasing the weight which invariably led to the plaintiff’s injury) failed to advise Hancock to fill out an accident report, or to visit a doctor. However, according to court records the plaintiff failed to share with the supervisor that she required medical attention – nor did the plaintiff ask to return home.
According to the wrongfully terminated lawsuit, the plaintiff experienced increasing pain upon returning home later that day and took painkillers she had been prescribed previously following an unrelated surgical procedure.
Court records revealed that the following day, the warehouse supervisor took the plaintiff to see a physician, and the plaintiff was cleared for work. However, a routine drug test taken as part of the doctor consultation revealed the presence of hydrocodone in the plaintiff’s system, related to the medication she had taken for pain the night before.
That’s when the trouble started, and formed the basis of the wrongful termination lawsuit. The plaintiff was asked for the prescription for the hydrocodone. Hancock indicated it was an older prescription, for which she failed to keep the original copy and would need seven days for replacement paperwork to be sent from her healthcare provider.
Rather than place the plaintiff on unpaid leave until the paperwork for hydrocodone was secured, a human resources manager for the defendant terminated Hancock for violation of drug policy.
The trial court found that Time Warner had failed to accommodate Hancock’s disability, and the jury awarded damages. The appeals court reversed that decision, in part, because in the appellate panel’s view Hancock had failed to inform her supervisor at the time that the disability that served as the foundation for her wrongful termination lawsuit in California was due to her back injury.
The appellate panel also ruled that her termination was founded upon the plaintiff’s inability to immediately procure the prescribing documents for the hydrocodone, and not due to her disability.
“Even though the jury found TWC knew Hancock had a qualifying disability, it did not fire her because of the disability. As a result, Time Warner did not engage in disability discrimination and did not wrongfully terminate Hancock,” the decision said.
The wrongfully terminated case is Hancock v. Time Warner Cable Services LLC et al., Case No. B266532, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District.
Popular personalidad de la radio de Los Ángeles apela a una Terminación Injustificada de Contrato de California
Los Ángeles, CA: Un ex locutor de la emisora de radio K-Love 107.5 Los Ángeles reclama que su antiguo empleador, Univision Communications Inc. (Univision), terminó injustamente su contrato con la estación de radio, a pesar de los altos índices de sintonía, por presunta tardanza para llegar al sitio de trabajo, cuando en realidad la demandante Sofía Soria estaba luchando contra un tumor estomacal y requirió cirugía, o al menos eso alegó ella. Soria lanzó una apelación de Terminación Injustificada de Contrato en California, la cual fue oída a principios de noviembre.
Soria alega en los documentos de la corte que los médicos diagnosticaron su tumor de estómago a finales del 2010, y después de un año de visitas continuas al médico lo cual resultó en múltiples ausencias a su programa de radio, Soria afirma haber informado a su empleador que requeriría cirugía. Durante esa conversación, según lo afirmado por la demandante, se produjo a finales del 2011. Poco después, en noviembre de ese año, Soria fue despedida de su trabajo después de haber pasado quince años trabajando con la estación.
Una demanda por despido injustificado que la demandante presentó contra su antiguo empleador en enero de 2013 alega que, en el momento de su despido, su programa de radio disfrutó de altos índices de sintonía por períodos consistentes, por lo que obtuvo aumentos de sueldo y bonos, así como evaluaciones de desempeño positivas, o al menos eso afirma su defensa.
Un tribunal inferior sentenció a favor de Univision. Soria apeló, y el 3 de noviembre una corte de apelaciones de California escuchó argumentos apoyando la sugerencia de la demandante de que fue despedida injustamente de su trabajo en la radio de California.
Univision había argumentado originalmente que Soria nunca estuvo realmente discapacitada y no había solicitado un permiso o licencia médica.
El acusado también sostuvo que el tumor resultó ser no cancerígeno, y por lo tanto no era una amenaza para la salud de la demandante. En opinión del empleador, el demandante había perdido numerosos turnos sin una causa justificable y fue despedida por tardanzas frecuentes. Univision recibió un juicio sumario, previo al recurso de Soria.
En apelación la semana pasada, los abogados de la demandante señalaron que a pesar de que el tumor había demostrado ser benigno, los médicos de Soria habían sugerido a su paciente que el tumor seguía siendo una amenaza para sus órganos internos, de ahí la necesidad de cirugía.
Soria observó durante su apelación que las citas médicas eran necesarias para el monitoreo, biopsias y así sucesivamente. Mientras que la posición de Univision era que, en su opinión, fue la elección de su ex empleada el programar las citas durante los horarios de trabajo, un juez de apelación se preguntó si podría haber habido más compromiso por parte de Univision para apoyar a su empleada en su hora de mayor necesidad.
Los abogados de la demandante también señalaron que a pesar de las afirmaciones de Univision de que la terminación del contrato de Soria se basaba en tardanzas y ausencias frecuentes, "no había un solo documento que criticara su desempeño".
La apelación por Terminación Injustificada de Contrato en California también señala que, bajo la Ley de Derechos de la Familia vigente en California, el único requisito básico para el permiso o licencia médica era que la demandante advirtiera verbalmente que necesitaba un procedimiento quirúrgico. Una demanda subsiguiente de discriminación por discapacidad que habría calificado bajo la Ley de Empleo Justo y Vivienda, fue "negada a raíz de su despido", declaró su abogado en la apelación de la demandante durante la semana pasada.
La demanda por Terminación Injustificada de Contrato en California es Sofía Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles Inc. y otros, caso número B263224, en el Tribunal de Apelación del Estado de California, Segundo Distrito Apelativo.
Popular Los Angeles Radio Personality Appeals California Wrongful Termination
Los Angeles, CA: A former announcer with the Spanish-language radio station K-Love 107.5 Los Angeles claims her former employer, Univision Communications Inc. (Univision), wrongfully terminated her employment with the radio station, in spite of high ratings, for alleged tardiness, when in reality plaintiff Sofia Soria was battling a stomach tumor and required surgery, or so she alleged. Soria launched a California Wrongful Termination appeal, which was heard in early November.
Soria alleges in court documents that doctors diagnosed her stomach tumor in late 2010, and following a year of doctor visits that resulted in multiple absences from her radio program, Soria claims to have informed her employer that she would require surgery. That conversation, the plaintiff alleges, occurred in late 2011. Not long after, in November of that year, Soria was terminated from her job after fifteen years with the station.
A wrongful termination lawsuit the plaintiff filed against her former employer in January, 2013 alleges that at the time of her firing, her radio program enjoyed consistently high ratings, for which she earned pay raises and bonuses, as well as positive performance reviews, or so her lawsuit claims.
A lower court found in favor of Univision. Soria appealed, and on November 3 a California appeals court heard arguments supporting the plaintiff’s suggestion that she was wrongfully terminated from her California radio job.
Univision had argued originally that Soria was never really disabled and had not requested accommodation or medical leave.
The defendant had also argued that the tumor turned out to be non-cancerous, and thus was not a threat to the plaintiff’s health. In the employer’s view, the plaintiff had missed numerous shifts without just cause and was terminated for frequent tardiness. Univision was granted summary judgment, prior to Soria’s appeal.
On appeal last week, the plaintiff’s attorneys noted that in spite of the tumor having proven to be benign, Soria’s doctors had suggested to their patient that the tumor remained a threat to Soria’s internal organs – hence the need for surgery.
Soria noted during her appeal that medical appointments were necessary for monitoring, biopsies and so on. While Univision’s position was that in its view, it was the choice of their former employee to schedule appointments during work hours, an appellate judge wondered if there might have been more that Univision could have done to support their employee in her hour of need.
The plaintiff’s attorneys also noted that in spite of Univision’s claims that termination of Soria’s employment was based upon tardiness and frequent absences, there was “not a single piece of paper criticizing her performance.”
The California Wrongful Termination appeal also noted that under the Family Rights Act observed in California, the only basic requirement for accommodation was for the plaintiff to verbally note that she required a surgical procedure. A subsequent disability discrimination claim that would have qualified under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, was “shut down by her termination,” her attorney stated at the plaintiff’s appeal last week.
The California Wrongful Termination lawsuit is Sofia Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles Inc. et al., case number B263224, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District.
Gretchen Carlson's Wrongful Termination Lawsuit Against Fox
Sacramento, CA: Women who have been victims of sexual harassment at work may have given a little cheer when Gretchen Carlson filed a wrongful termination lawsuit and sexual harassment lawsuit against Roger Ailes, Carlson's former boss at Fox News. And although the lawsuit was filed in New Jersey, the implications of the suit will likely be felt across the US, as the defendant argues the lawsuit should be dismissed and sent to arbitration. In the meantime, more women have come forward alleging a pattern of sexual harassment from Ailes.
Carlson was a long-time television host, including hosting an afternoon program called "The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson" on Fox News. She is a graduate of Stanford University, a best-selling author, an award-winning journalist, and a former Miss America.
According to court documents, Carlson's employment with Fox News was terminated on June 23, 2016, by Ailes in retaliation for Carlson refusing Ailes' sexual advances. Carlson alleges that when she met with Ailes to discuss his discriminatory treatment of her, Ailes commented that some problems are easier to solve through a sexual relationship. Carlson then rejected Ailes' demands for sex and within the year her employment at Fox News was ended.
"Notwithstanding her strong performance and tireless work ethic, however, Ailes denied Carlson fair compensation, desirable assignments and other career-enhancing opportunities in retaliation for her complaints of harassment and discrimination and because she rejected his sexual advances," the lawsuit alleges.
Carlson had previously complained about a hostile work environment created by Steve Doocy on the show Fox & Friends, in which Doocy, Carlson's co-host, mocked her, shunned her, belittled her, and treated her as a "blond female prop." Ailes' alleged response to Carlson's complaint was to tell her she needed to "get along with the boys."
Ailes has since left his position as CEO of Fox News, after more women came forward with allegations of sexual harassment. Included among those was Megyn Kelly, who said Ailes sexually harassed her around 10 years ago. So far, the lawsuit names only Ailes as a defendant, not Fox News or 21st Century Fox.
In response to the lawsuit, Ailes has filed a motion to dismiss, noting that Carlson agreed to arbitration when she signed her contract with the network. The contract requires Carlson to take any employment dispute with Fox News to a confidential arbitration panel, rather than to a court. Ailes' attorneys argue that just because Ailes is named in the lawsuit and Fox is not, does not negate the arbitration clause, according to the Los Angeles Times (7/8/16).
Wells Fargo Settles Wrongful Termination Lawsuit
Los Angeles, CA: Wells Fargo has settled a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a former employee, who alleged her decision to transition from a man to a woman led to her being fired. The California labor lawsuit was filed in July 2015, and alleged Marlo Kaitlin Gallegos suffered discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination at the hands of Wells Fargo. The terms of the settlement have not been released.
According to Patch (6/3/16), Gallegos was hired by Wells Fargo to work in the call center in August 2010 and began transitioning to a woman in December of the same year. After allegedly being told by her boss that her actions were unnatural, Gallegos complained to another supervisor who allegedly began criticizing Gallegos’s work after the complaint was made.
Even after a transfer to a new position, Gallegos alleges she suffered hostile comments about her appearance, and her complaints again were not heeded. In addition to negative comments from supervisors and colleagues, Gallegos alleged she was left out of mandatory coaching sessions and meetings and was fired in 2014 after being told Wells Fargo could no longer employ her.
Wells Fargo denied the allegations. The judge recently dismissed part of Gallegos’s case against Wells Fargo, finding Gallegos has a history of job performance problems. The lawsuit was reportedly settled but terms of the settlement have not been released.
Meanwhile, a former employee of Caithness Corp. filed a lawsuit against the company alleging breach of oral contract, discrimination and wrongful termination. According to Norcal Record (6/10/16), Katherine Oster filed the lawsuit in California alleging she was discriminated against by her male coworkers, and was not given the equity interest she was promised by her employer. Oster alleges after she complained about gender discrimination she was fired in retaliation.
It is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of gender, gender identity or other protected characteristics. Further, it is illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for asserting their rights. Even in at-will employment states - where employee/employer relationships can be terminated at any time for no reason - there are situations in which a termination could be found to be wrongful.
Employees who believe their rights have been violated or believe they have been subject to wrongful termination are able to file a lawsuit to recover lost wages and be reinstated to their position.
The Oster lawsuit is Oster v. Caithness Corp., et al, case number 3:16-cv-03164, in US District Court, Northern District of California.
Former Firefighter Awarded $2.3 Million
Vallejo, CA: A former California firefighter has been awarded $2.3 million in his wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit, filed after he was allegedly fired for complaining about breaches in procedure. The plaintiff, Todd Milan, alleged in his wrongful termination lawsuit that two of his superiors retaliated against him when he reported the breaches to officials.
According to Patch (3/23/16), Milan attended a fire at a mobile home on September 29, 2011. During the fire, Milan was required to enter the mobile home and expected that his captain would enter with him, as per requirements that firefighters work in pairs. The captain reportedly did not enter the mobile home with Milan and did not have his gloves on while at the fire.
Speaking with KTVU (3/18/16), Milan said he ran into the burning mobile home to rescue a paraplegic man trapped in his bed. Although Milan reached the man while he was alive, he was unable to pull him from the mobile home without help and had to leave because of the intensity of the heat. The man later died from his injuries, and Milan says he suffered burns on his hands, face and back. Milan was reportedly blamed for the man’s death and reprimanded for his actions.
“At all times herein mentioned, Defendant’s managerial employees knew that the statements in [the captain’s] written report and reprimand were false, were being used to cover up errors of ranking officers, and were intended to set up Plaintiff for discipline and ultimate termination,” court documents allege.
Milan alleges the fire chief told him his story about the incident should match the accounts given by other firefighters, which he took to be a threat. He also had allegedly previously been told he should not speak with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health due to a PTSD diagnosis. After Milan reported the incident to the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, his superiors reportedly retaliated against him, including not allowing him to retake a failed examination, being falsely accused of being late for work or leaving early, and being written up based on false or misleading statements.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in November 2012 after he was dismissed from his job. A jury agreed with Milan and awarded him $2.3 million.
The lawsuit was Milan v. City of Vellajo, case number FCS042585, in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano.
California State Bar Faces $15 Million Wrongful Termination Lawsuit
Los Angeles, CA: The California State Bar faces a $15 million wrongful termination lawsuit alleging a former administrative assistant was fired for reporting ethical violations. Sonja Oehler filed the California wrongful termination suit, claiming she was fired because she knew about incompetence on the part of State Bar leadership and further claiming that other employees were also wrongfully fired from their jobs.
According to Courthouse News Service (2/19/16), Oehler alleges she was fired not for a lack of skill or ability to carry out her job duties, but because she was aware of ethical issues within the California State Bar.
Among Oehler’s complaints about the State Bar are that money was mismanaged - including sending a director to San Francisco for a three-hour hearing but paying for four nights at the Palace Hotel, and reimbursing a director $30,000 in unapproved costs. Oehler also alleges the former chief prosecutor moved discipline cases to a deferred list and then back to active status to lessen the appearance of a backlog of cases.
Furthermore, Oehler claims the State Bar ignored hundreds of complaints of fraud filed by Mexican workers who were scammed of their money while seeking American citizenship. And the lawsuit claims that Jayne Kim, former chief prosecutor, faced ethics complaints about her practices but dismissed them instead of having them sent to a third party.
Former executive Joseph Dunn has also filed a lawsuit against the California State Bar, alleging he was fired when he exposed massive cover-ups within the organization.
The California State Bar says it denies the allegations and will defend itself. Oehler seeks $10 million in damages from wrongful termination and $5 million for punitive damages.
Although California is an at-will employment state - meaning an employer can end the working relationship at any time for any reason - there are circumstances in which an employee can file a wrongful termination lawsuit. If an employee has an agreement setting out the conditions under which employment can be terminated, any termination that violates the agreement could be considered wrongful. Also, employers cannot fire an employee for reasons that violate public policy or for reasons that violate statutory law - such as discriminatory reasons.
Employees who feel their employment termination violates California state laws may be able to file a lawsuit to recover lost wages and be reinstated to their job.
The lawsuit is Oehler v. The State Bar of California et al., case number BC610699.
About . TOS . Privacy . Disclaimer . Contact . Advertise . Member Login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License ©2026 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Visit other Online Legal Media Websites:
