The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment holding that evidence of other pregnant employees who were fired will be admissible at trial in pregnancy discrimination case.California Employment Law Attorneys believe this is a precedent setting published decision.
Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) May 5, 2009 -- On April 30, 2009, the California Second District Court of Appeal, in Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy et al. Case No.: B198888 (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 341 303) issued a published decision reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in a pregnancy discrimination and wrongful termination case. The Court of Appeal also instructed the trial court to admit evidence of other employees who were fired after each informed the employer that she was pregnant. Additionally, testimony that the employer concocted false accusations regarding pregnant employees to justify firing them was ruled to be admissible.
"For the very first time, there is a published decision which directs California trial judges to allow employees who have been discriminated against to testify in the discrimination case of their co-worker. This is not only the right ruling for Ms. Johnson, it sends a message to all employers who engage in discriminatory conduct," said lead appellate lawyer V. James DeSimone, of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP.
Ms. Johnson testified that she was terminated within nine days of informing her employer that she was pregnant. She was the fourth woman within one year terminated shortly after disclosing she was pregnant to her employer. Remarkably, the trial Judge ignored this evidence and denied Ms. Johnson her right to have her case heard in trial by a jury. However, the Court of Appeal's reversal affirmed Ms. Johnson's right to a jury trial.
The Court of Appeal stated:
"here we can say as a matter of law that the "me too" evidence presented by the plaintiff in the instant case is per se admissible under both relevance and Evidence Code section 352 standards. The evidence sets out factual scenarios related by former employees of the defendant that are sufficiently similar to the one presented by the plaintiff concerning her own discharge by defendant, and the probative value of the evidence clearly outweighs any prejudice that would be suffered by defendant by its admission. Dissimilarities between the facts related in the other employees' declarations and the facts asserted by plaintiff with regard to her own case go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility."
--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 1154132, *17 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.)
The appellate Court emphasized that Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence that she had been discriminated against concluding, "Although we have set out several matters which by themselves will not constitute substantial evidence that defendant's stated reason for firing plaintiff was pretextual or that defendant acted with a discriminatory animus when it fired her, there remains the question whether these matters, when taken together, do constitute sufficient evidence to demonstrate a triable issue of fact with respect to plaintiff's contention that her pregnancy was the true cause of defendant's decision to fire her. In our view, they do." Id. at 11.
Twila S. White of Law Offices of Twila S. White, co-counsel for the Plaintiff added, "My client was devastated when the Judge ruled in favor of the defendant and deprived her of her day in Court. This restores our faith in the civil justice system. The decision helps all employees who suffer any form of discrimination in California."
See Also:
- R.F. Lafferty Selects SunGard's Brass OMS and Protegent Trading Compliance Solutions
- Stanlin Energy's Boiler Efficiency Technology Saved 8% to 28% in Fuel Use and Emission Reductions During Recent Case Trials
- Administrative Advantage Selects ZyDoc e-Transcription Platform for Clients
- Local Business Thrives in a Down Economy - NYC Advisors, LLC Invests in Stark
- BenefitMall Announces Destination for 2009 Sales Incentive Trip to San Juan
[Via Legal / Law]
No comments:
Post a Comment