Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog
At Nassir Law Group, we are passionate about defending employees who face discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination. Our Irvine-based firm is committed to upholding California’s robust employment laws to protect workers’ rights across Orange County and beyond. Recently, we took on a compelling case involving a long-term employee who was unjustly terminated after seeking accommodations for serious medical conditions, highlighting the critical need for legal advocacy. Below, we share insights from this case, drawn from a claims letter we sent on behalf of our client, while safeguarding their privacy. To learn how we can support you, visit our employment law services page or call us at (949) 375-4734.
A Loyal Employee Denied Accommodation and Forced into Retirement
Our client, a dedicated employee with over 20 years of service at a major California petroleum company, faced severe health challenges in 2021, including diagnoses of gastrointestinal cancer, polycystic kidney disease, and end-stage renal dialysis. These conditions qualified as disabilities under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In February 2021, our client began protected medical leave, which the employer approved until May 2022. Upon being cleared to return to work with minor restrictions—no lifting over 25 pounds and dialysis three days a week—our client repeatedly sought to resume their role on the Train Crew or be reassigned to another suitable position.
Shockingly, despite the employer’s own job profile confirming that lifting over 25 pounds was not an essential function of the role, the company refused to reinstate our client or engage in a good-faith interactive process to explore accommodations. Instead, they delayed responses, requested redundant medical documentation, and ultimately pressured our client to retire or accept long-term disability benefits. When our client, at age 53, reported this discriminatory treatment to the California Civil Rights Department and the employer’s HR department, they were terminated in January 2024, with the discharge falsely labeled as a “voluntary resignation” to deny unemployment benefits. At Nassir Law Group, we identified this as a clear case of disability discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation, and we took decisive action. Learn more about wrongful termination on our dedicated page.
Our Firm’s Response: Demanding Accountability
In April 2024, we issued a comprehensive claims letter from our office at 4695 MacArthur Blvd, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, California 92660, to the employer’s senior counsel, outlining our client’s claims and demanding justice. The letter detailed multiple violations of California law, including:
-
Disability Discrimination (FEHA, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a)): The employer refused to reinstate our client despite their ability to perform essential job duties with minor accommodations, violating FEHA, as supported by Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297.
-
Failure to Accommodate and Engage in the Interactive Process (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m), (n)): The employer ignored our client’s repeated requests for accommodations and failed to propose alternatives, contravening Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 952.
-
Whistleblower Retaliation (Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5): Our client was terminated 20 days after reporting disability discrimination to the California Civil Rights Department, triggering a presumption of retaliation under Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal. 5th 703.
-
Age Discrimination (Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a)): The employer’s pressure to retire and termination at age 53 suggest age-based discrimination, as seen in Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317.
-
Failure to Provide Personnel Records (Cal. Labor Code § 1198.5): The employer provided incomplete and redacted records, incurring a $750 penalty.
We also demanded preservation of all evidence, including electronically stored information (ESI), citing risks of sanctions for spoliation under Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1. For more on how we tackle employment disputes, visit our blog.
Why This Case Matters
This case highlights the devastating impact of disability and age discrimination, particularly when employers refuse to accommodate employees with serious medical conditions. Our client, a loyal employee with two decades of exemplary service, was denied the opportunity to return to work despite medical clearance and a job profile confirming their restrictions posed no barrier. The employer’s false characterization of the termination as a “voluntary resignation” and pressure to retire further compounded the injustice, causing significant emotional and financial harm.
At Nassir Law Group, we are committed to fighting for employees facing such violations. Our client’s claims include lost wages ($166,811 annually plus benefits), emotional distress, and punitive damages, supported by recent California verdicts like Gatchalian v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) ($9 million for emotional distress). The employer’s refusal to engage in the interactive process and retaliatory actions, as evidenced by Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (2000) 530 U.S. 133, make this case ripe for substantial damages, including up to nine times actual damages per State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408.
The Importance of Challenging Pretextual Terminations
The employer’s claim that our client “retired” or “voluntarily resigned” is a clear pretext, as our client consistently sought to return to work and explicitly rejected retirement. California law recognizes that such false justifications can infer discriminatory intent, particularly when tied to protected activities like reporting discrimination or requesting accommodations. By exposing these inconsistencies and the employer’s failure to follow FEHA’s accommodation requirements, we aim to prove that the termination was driven by discrimination and retaliation, not legitimate business reasons. If you’re facing similar treatment, contact us at (949) 375-4734 or visit our contact page.
How Nassir Law Group Can Help
Cases like this underscore the value of experienced legal representation. At Nassir Law Group, located at 4695 MacArthur Blvd, 11th Floor, Newport Beach, California 92660, we specialize in complex employment disputes, including disability discrimination, age discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination. Our team is deeply knowledgeable about California’s employment laws and has a proven track record of securing justice for our clients. Whether you’ve been denied accommodations, retaliated against for reporting illegal conduct, or wrongfully terminated, we’re here to advocate for you.
If you or someone you know has faced workplace injustice, act quickly—employment law claims have strict deadlines. Call us at (949) 375-4734 to schedule a consultation, or visit our website to explore our services. Our blog offers additional resources on employee rights and case updates.
Moving Forward
We have requested a response from the employer by May 1, 2024, offering an opportunity for pre-litigation resolution or mediation. If the employer fails to engage in good faith, we are prepared to file a lawsuit, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and penalties for non-compliance with record production. Our goal is to secure justice for our client and send a powerful message that disability discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation are unacceptable.
Stay tuned to our blog for updates on this case and other employment law developments. At Nassir Law Group, we are proud to fight for workers’ rights and uphold California’s employment protections.