Do I have a potential wrongful termination case?

Great point. As I said my numbers were incredibly high and I was the top performing rep in the company. In sales most terminations are performance based so... Or documented via PIPs of which I had none

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...
 
welkin said:
The point is that an employer cannot use any other factor to justify the denial or termination of employment in a Title 7 case.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LauraSummers said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, marital status is protected. But from what I remember your marital status wasn't the issue it was your living location.
 
It was also in my employment contract that they could have requested for me to relocate to that area for a higher rate of pay. No official request was given to me and my rate of pay was not increased so yes, I went and bought a house in the suburbs when it was clear by my numbers I didn't need to live in LA proper and no one offered me the pay increase nor the official relocation request as according to my contract I signed upon hire.

The house, by the way, was more of a flip project/investment than a home we would reside in forever. That said we planned on living there while we worked on it. I had made that clear to my manager. There were a good 14 months they had to officially request that I move to LA and start paying me the increase as agreed upon. Never happened! In fact moving to LA was only brought up again once the owner learned about the house.

PayrollHRGuy said:
Yes, marital status is protected. But from what I remember your marital status wasn't the issue it was your living location.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LauraSummers said:
It was also in my employment contract that they could have requested for me to relocate to that area for a higher rate of pay. No official request was given to me and my rate of pay was not increased so yes, I went and bought a house in the suburbs when it was clear by my numbers I didn't need to live in LA proper and no one offered me the pay increase nor the official relocation request as according to my contract I signed upon hire.

The house, by the way, was more of a flip project/investment than a home we would reside in forever. That said we planned on living there while we worked on it. I had made that clear to my manager. There were a good 14 months they had to officially request that I move to LA and start paying me the increase as agreed upon. Never happened!
Click to expand...

That still doesn't make it a wrongful termination.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
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?
Click to expand...
It had come up in the interview if I would be open to moving to LA proper and I had said that I would be open to it if they took into account the difference in the cost of living. I had that increased salary to cover the increased cost of living aspect written into the employment contract by the very chance they might ask me to move. They never officially asked me to move. Owner just expressed his disappointment that I was buying a house with my boyfriend. Essentially one could live anywhere in the territory for the job, which spanned multiple states, not LA proper itself. There were several existing accounts in LA but this position was primarily a hunter role not a coddle the existing accounts role. The existing accounts tend to be maxed out accounts that you can only increase by so much. New accounts you can create more revenue on
 
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)
 
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...
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.
 
LauraSummers said:
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.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with whether one has children or not.
 
cbg said:
You obviously don't understand the case you are hanging your hat on. That is NOT what the court said..
Click to expand...

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:
LauraSummers said:
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...

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

cbg 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Firing decision. Not hiring. And I was HIRED in the location I started in with a clause that I would move to LA if they asked me to Move to LA but they would have to pay me more to move to LA.
 
Firing decision. Not hiring. And I was HIRED in the location I started in with a clause that I would move to LA if they asked me to Move to LA but they would have to pay me more to move to LA.

cbg said:
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.
Click to expand...
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top