|
Employment
Case Alert: Appellate Court
Reverses Pregnancy Discrimination Judgment for Plaintiff
On
February 4, 2010, the Second Appellate District reversed a trial
court’s judgment for the plaintiff in a pregnancy discrimination
case. The case was reversed on the grounds that the trial court judge
erred in not instructing the jury that the employer could prevail when
the employer's non-discriminatory motive alone would have justified the
termination.
In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, plaintiff was hired as a bus
driver trainee in October 2004. Six months later, she was involved in two
preventable accidents and missed numerous shifts, all of which was
properly documented by the City. Ms. Harris was subsequently told by her
supervisor that her performance was unsatisfactory for continued
employment based upon the documented record. A week later, Ms. Harris
informed her supervisor she was pregnant, and two days later she was
terminated.
Ms.
Harris sued the City of Santa Monica claiming she was terminated because
of her pregnancy. Throughout the litigation, the City maintained it had
documented non-discriminatory reasons for the termination unrelated to
Ms. Harris’s pregnancy. Despite the evidence, the trial court
refused to instruct the jury that the employer could prevail in such a
situation where the employer's non-discriminatory motive alone would have
justified the termination. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The
Court of Appeal reversed.
In
view of this decision, as long as the employer has clearly defined
disciplinary policies and consistently applies them to all employees
equally, that employer may feel more confident in terminating non-performing
individuals.
This document is intended to provide you with general
information about employment related decisions. The contents of this
document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have
questions about the contents of this alert, please contact Ann Liroff at
415-546-7500 or aliroff@hbblaw.com
or contact your preferred Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP attorney. This
communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.
|
