The above video was the first in a series of educational videos about employment law. To learn more about this type of case, visit our main wrongful termination page.
Branigan Robertson is pleased to announce that he has joined the Irvine law firm of Kring & Chung, LLP. Mr. Robertson will continue to serve his clients with uncompromising personal service. If you have any questions, or want to consult with Mr. Robertson or his staff, call us at 949-667-3025.
Last week, a San Francisco jury demonstrated that California takes the rights of whistleblowers seriously. Trish Williams, a former sales rep for Wyndham Vacation Ownership, was awarded $20 million in a civil lawsuit against her former employer.
According to a press release issued by the lawyers representing Williams, their client was terminated after she reported the company’s shady business practices, which included defrauding elderly customers through dishonest sales tactics. “I am grateful a jury of 12 people exposed the facts of this fraud and confirmed that I was terminated for standing up to Wyndham on behalf of the elderly clients they were ripping off,” Williams said after the verdict was handed down.
During the one-month trial, William’s lawyers presented evidence that sales reps maxed out customer credit cards, lied about reducing timeshare maintenance fees, and mislead clients about their ability to obtain rental income from timeshares.
Sales reps were encouraged to engage in a practice known as “pitching heat,” which consisted of using deliberate misrepresentations in an effort to get customers to buy more timeshare “points.”
There were even TAFT days, an acronym for “Tell Them Any F***ing Thing,” when sales reps were encouraged to tell clients anything as long as they didn’t put it in writing. One high ranking sales rep was quoted as saying “I sold my soul to the devil. I can say whatever I want so long as I don’t put it in writing, that’s why Wyndham has good lawyers.”
According to online news outlet SF Gate, Williams began working for a Wyndham vacation resort located in Virginia back in 2007, but transferred to an office in San Francisco in 2010. During her 63 days with that office, Williams reportedly complained seven times about dishonest sales tactics before being fired.
SF Gate reported that Wyndham tricked elderly clients, some in their 90s, into buying time share points by signing up for credit cards. The company would max out the cards without the clients’ knowledge.
Though according to court documents, the average fraudulent credit card bill was $52,000, Williams said she saw a bill for as much as $90,000. Because some of these customers had long standing relationships with the company, they weren’t reviewing documents they were signing, said Williams.
“A lot of these couples had been owners (with Wyndham) for years,” Williams said. “They were vulnerable.” The former Wyndham employee, who now works as a hostess at a grill in Virginia Beach, said she reported the alleged fraud to an executive, who threatened to fire her.
California Law Protects Employees Who Report Theft from Elderly
In California, there are multiple laws in place designed to protect workers. These include the Fair Housing and Employment Act, the State Labor Code, wrongful termination case law, as well as the Federal Civil Rights Act. There are various retaliation laws that protect workers.
For example, California Labor Code §1102.5(a) makes it illegal for an employer to enforce any rule that prevents an employee from cooperating with law enforcement, or another employee who has “authority to investigate, discover or correct” a workplace violation. Subsection (d) of the law further makes it illegal for the employer to retaliate against the employee for exercising his or her rights under the law.
Despite the fact that a jury awarded a large sum of money in the whistleblower’s favor in the recent Wyndham case, it appears that the time-share giant intends to appeal the decision. Adam Schwartz, a Wyndham spokesman said the company does not agree with the jury’s findings.
“The allegations in this case were isolated to a single sales office years ago involving a small group of individuals who are no longer employed by the company, and are wholly inconsistent with both our values and business practices,” Schwartz said.
Refusing to Settle
For her part, Williams said she wanted to go to trial despite having the option of settling. Four other Wyndham employees joined Williams in her lawsuit. However, all settled.
“If you don’t come before a jury, no one will ever know,” said Williams. “Everyone was trying to buy me off and shut me up, but I had nothing but faith for six whole years that this was going to turn out exactly how it was going to turn out.”
Wyndham Worldwide is the parent company of Wyndham Vacation Ownership. According to the company website, the vacation ownership division is the world’s largest developer and marketer of points-based vacation ownership products. The company claims to have developed a new business model in the time-share field, which utilizes “industry-leading sales and marketing expertise to sell vacation ownership interests.”
Please note: Mr. Robertson was not involved in this case and did not represent any of the affected parties. This article is simply meant to share the victory and explain CA law.
These days, even if it’s newsworthy, a sexual harassment case has a lot to compete with in order to command the public’s interest. In a digital mediascape flooded with a steady stream of updates on the world’s constant scandals, sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace don’t hold us in rapt attention as in the days of Anita Hill. But while the latest Kardashian fiasco competes for clicks in the blogosphere, sexual harassment cases continue to flood the legal system at both the federal and state level. Many involve a male supervisor who harasses a female subordinate, but they come in a variety of other forms as well, and the details never fail to be shocking.
We’ve plumbed the depths of the internet to come up with a list of ten high profile and slightly crazy sexual harassment cases. No doubt some of these cases were high profile due some unusual quirks — from bear-hugging surgeons to sex-hungry CEOs.
Read on to find out more, but remember, while it might be entertaining to browse these cases from behind the safety of a computer screen, it’s usually a living hell for those caught in the experience. State and federal laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on their sex or gender (in addition to other factors). If you believe you’ve been the victim of sexual harassment or discrimination, contact our sexual harassment attorney to see if we can help.
1. Julie Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital
In 1987 a surgical nurse named Julie Fisher filed a sexual discrimination suit against San Pedro Peninsula hospital in California. Fisher claimed that a gynecologist she worked with named Dr. Barry Tischler contributed to an environment of sexual harassment against women at the hospital. In her lawsuit, Fischer alleged Dr. Tischler engaged in sexual insults and inappropriate touching. On one occasion, Fischer claimed Tischler hugged her so tightly; he separated the cartilage in her ribs.
After Fisher complained to hospital management about Dr. Tischler’s behavior, the Dr. wrote her a letter of apology, but no disciplinary action was taken against him. She claimed that following an investigation by the hospital, Dr. Tischler continued to engage in harassing behavior with other female hospital employees, including pulling nurses onto his lap, grabbing women from behind and putting his hands on their breasts, picking them up and swinging them around. On one occasion, Fischer claimed, the good doctor even threw one woman onto a gurney. According to court documents, these actions took place in hospital hallways, the lunchroom, as well as the operating room.
The nurse claimed her fellow employees ostracized her after she complained about the Doctor’s behavior. Fisher said too that her husband, also a doctor at the hospital, began seeing a decline in his referrals.
The case was considered landmark at the time because Fischer was ultimately allowed to seek damages as a witness to sexual harassment and not as the direct target of harassment. Before she went to trial, the California Supreme Court ruled that employees who are not direct targets of sexual harassment could still sue if they can prove the harassment was pervasive enough to create a hostile workspace.
In a decision rendered by the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, one judge took exception to a lower court’s ruling that referred to Dr. Tischler’s behavior as merely “sophomoric antics.” The judge wrote, “Relegating this conduct to such a category is both demeaning and dishonest. Grabbing a woman’s breasts, gesturing towards a woman’s vaginal area or even making offensive sexual statements to another is far from being merely sophomoric. It is egregious, hostile conduct which should not be condoned or excused to immaturity.”
But in 1992, after only seven hours of deliberation, a jury voted 9-3 in favor of Dr. Tischler, finding that he did not engage in sexual harassment. According to a Los Angeles Times article following the verdict, Fisher’s lawyer, Peggy Garrity, likened her client’s case to the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill investigation.
“Clarence Thomas also made it to the Supreme Court and Anita Hill took a difficult, painful step and she made a difference,” Garrity told the times. “Slowly there will be changes here.”
According to an online state database, Dr. Tischler is still licensed to practice medicine.
2. EEOC v. Z Foods
In July, a Federal Judge awarded a group of California farm laborers more than $1.4 million in damages relating to sexual harassment and retaliation. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the workers by the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleged that two supervisors with California based Z Foods awarded promotions to female farm workers in exchange for sexual favors. The supervisors were also found to subject female workers to continuous sexual advances, leering and unwanted physical touching. The company also fired male and female employees who complained about the harassment.
The award was the maximum amount allowed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The judgment found that the farm workers suffered severe emotional distress as the result of the company’s actions.
Elementary School Sexual Harassment
As far as pure craziness goes, this one might have taken the top prize, had the sexual harassment portion actually gone through the courts. Not only was the accused harasser a child, but he was also the winner of a large settlement.
In 2006, officials of at a Massachusetts elementary school accused a first grader of sexually harassing a fellow student. While sitting in a classroom of about 20 students, as well as a teacher, the unidentified boy allegedly touched a female classmate inside her clothing waistband on her skin.
The school principle said the child’s actions constituted sexual harassment and suspended the boy for three days. In addition, the police were contacted as well as social services and the district attorney. No charges were filed, but the boy’s parents sued the city in 2007. Media reports stated that an insurance settlement paid out to the boy’s parents totaled $20,000. Meanwhile, the boy will receive a guaranteed lump sum of more than $132,000 when he turns 17. The boy’s attorney was also paid $60,000 in legal fees.
“It was not handled properly, and we’re paying the price,” Brophy said.
Penny Muck v. Geffen Records
The music industry is rife with tales of debauchery. While many stories from the industry revolve around old-fashioned sex, drugs and rock and roll, legitimate harassment — and worse — does occur. One high-profile case to recently storm through the blogosphere involves the efforts of pop star Kesha to be released from her contract with Sony Records over claims that she was sexually assaulted and verbally abused by music producer Dr. Luke. While young music fans may find such a story to be an outlier in the industry, record executives have a well-established history of harassment and discrimination that goes back decades.
In 1992 the media referred to a 28-year-old secretary at Geffen Records named Penny Muck as the Anita Hill of the music industry. In a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Muck claimed her boss, Marko Babineau, general manager of the label, had engaged in various harassing behaviors including fondling her breasts, and on one occasion, forcing her face into his crotch. Perhaps most shockingly, Muck recounted the day when Babineau stood over her desk and began to masturbate. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Muck said the experience reminded her of something out of Jekyll and Hyde.
“After he ejaculated, it was so weird,” Muck said. “He just walks back into his office, it’s like business as usual. As if nothing ever happened.”
While Geffen initially said Babineau left the company to spend more time with family, it later admitted to terminating the executive as a result of an investigation into his behavior with Muck. Though the label denied any prior knowledge of Babineau’s harassing behavior, the company quietly settled the suit with Muck for $500,000.
Melissa Clerking & Lindsey Allison v. Long Beach Police Department
Sometimes a discrimination case has all the elements of a made for TV movie. This was literally the case in the early 1990s when two female police officers sued the Long Beach Police Department for harassment and won a large settlement.
The officers, Melissa Clerkin, and Lindsey Allison accused male officers of treating them with hostility, and in some cases, putting them in physical danger. Allison, the department’s first female canine handler, was subject to ridicule and isolation from those in her unit who allowed their dogs to attack her. Clerkin meanwhile had been in a years-long physical relationship with a supervisor. When the relationship ended, the supervisor threatened her. When she complained about this treatment, male colleagues refused to provide backup assistance, and sent offensive messages to her over police computers.
In 1993, after Clerkin and Allison won their lawsuit, the city decided to settle the case for nearly $3 million. The women’s ordeal was chronicled in the made for TV movie “With Hostile Intent.” Broadcast in 1993, the film starred Melissa Gilbert.
James Gist v. Pam Matranga
Not every case of sexual discrimination or harassment involves a man mistreating a woman (though a lot of them do). In 2014, a Texas jury awarded $567,000 to 51-year-old former police constable James Gist after it found a supervising constable, Pam Matranga, sexually harassed him for nearly five months.
Gist accused Matranga of making suggestive comments and advances, as well as pressing his head between her breasts. Gist’s attorney told the Houston Chronicle, that in addition to awarding his client $200,000 more than he asked for, the jury wasn’t swayed by the atypical gender dynamics of the case.
“They rejected this whole notion that you get away with it because you are a female,” Griffin said.
Corey Lashley v. Sheila Flynn
Yet another instance of a male plaintiff winning a sexual harassment against a female employer happened in 2014 in Queens. Corey Lashley took a job at the New Life Business Institute in 2012 after company president Sheila Flynn offered him position advertising for the company. While the New York Daily News referred to Flynn as a “sex-hungry boss,” federal court documents paint a slightly less salacious story.
According to court records, the pair initially met at a nightclub and a romantic relationship formed during Lashley’s employment with New Life. But Lashley contended that after he broke things off with Flynn, she continued to pursue him romantically.
Lashley testified that Flynn’s pursuit included rubbing on his body while the two were in her office, as well as performing oral sex on him. He testified to feeling badly about the relationship and made attempts to avoid his boss. Soon after that, Flynn fired Lashley.
During the civil trial, Flynn testified the reason she fired her former lover was because of his criminal background, which limited his ability to obtain a particular license pertinent to his job. However, Lashley maintained that his boss was aware of his criminal background at the time she hired him. Lashley sued Flynn and her company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act arguing that he was the victim of “quid pro quo” sexual harassment. This type of harassment occurs when rejection of unwelcome sexual conduct is used as a basis for termination. A jury awarded him $40,000.
Kerry Woods v. Chuck Wolfe
In another example of the unexpected ways sexual harassment can occur, the EEOC sued a construction company in Louisiana in 2009 on behalf of a male employee who claimed to have been sexually harassed by another male employee.
According to the EEOC, the accused harasser was Chuck Wolfe, a superintendant with Boh Bros. Construction Co. Employee Kerry Woods accused Wolfe who taunted him with abusive sexual language and even exposed himself to Woods.
During the trial, Wolfe admitted to harassing Woods, because in his opinion, Woods was effeminate and didn’t conform to the stereotype of an ironworker. According to an article in the Pacific Standard, Wolfe took exception to Woods making an off-hand comment to coworkers about preferring pre-moistened antibacterial wipes to toilet paper. Wolfe reportedly found this to be a less than manly thing to say out loud.
Boh Bros. was ultimately found to have allowed “hostile work environment” sexual harassment to occur. The jury awarded Woods $451,000 in back pay, compensatory and punitive damages. This figure was reportedly reduced by the court to $301,000 due to statutory limits.
Women Harassing Other Women
As the previous case on this list showed, in the eyes of the law, men are capable of sexually harassing other men. It should come as no surprise then that sometimes women harass other women sexually.
In 2014, the EEOC announced a same sex harassment settlement in favor of a group of women who worked at a Reno Nevada branch of Wells Fargo. According to an EEOC press release, four female employees accused another female employee as well as a female manager of directing sexual comments, gestures and images at them. The manager and teller were also accused of inappropriately touching and suggesting that the four employees wear sexually provocative clothing.
During its investigation, the EEOC found that the women reported the offensive behavior several times, but management failed to respond quickly. Wells Fargo agreed to pay $290,000 to the four bank tellers as settlement.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc.
The last case on this list laid the groundwork for same sex harassment cases to go to trial, and itself went all the way to the United States Supreme Court in 1997.
The case involved Joseph Oncale, a roustabout on an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Oncale accused his male co-workers, who were reportedly heterosexual, of harassing and taunting him repeatedly. In one incident, Oncale claimed while he and the other employees were showering, he was grabbed by his coworkers, who forced a bar of soap between his buttocks. Oncale also claimed to have been threatened with rape.
Oncale quit his job, and eventually sued. After a lower court tossed the case because it was a same-sex incident, the US Supreme course heard the case and decided the gender of the victim was irrelevant under the civil rights act.
“Nothing in [this law] necessarily bars a claim of discrimination because of sex merely because the plaintiff and the defendant are of the same sex,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on behalf of the court.
The above 10 examples are crazy stories from a factual standpoint. If you want to read about some enormous California sexual harassment verdicts, click here. If you want to learn more about wrongful termination, click here. If you want to learn more about other types of harassment, view our main harassment page here. If you’re looking for a personal injury attorney, this guy is pretty good. Finally, if you just want to speak with an employment lawyer, visit our homepage.
You are sitting around after work when you receive a phone call. It is the HR manager for a business in San Francisco and they are looking for someone just like you. You love San Francisco, they are offering you 10% above your current salary, and you will be their new Vice-President of Operations. So you sell your LA home and move to SF. Upon arrival, you are handed a mop, a bucket and told you will be making minimum wage. Surely this cannot be legal? This is an extreme example, but it happens. People move for a job and it is not what they were sold on. This article presents the legal basics of fraudulent inducement.
Fraudulent Inducement Attorney
First and foremost, there are two ways that fraudulent inducement can occur: intentionally and negligently. The difference between the two is as simple as the job offeror knowing for sure, or recklessly ignoring the truth, of the information given to you. If in the scenario above the HR manager knew that they were going to pay you minimum wage and have you mopping floors despite providing a description resembling a VP of Operations position, it is intentional. If the HR Manager honestly believed that you would be the VP of Operations, but should have known that was not going to be the case, then it may be negligently induced.
What do the Courts Look at in False Promise Cases
To figure out if you were induced into taking the job, the court is going to look at several things:
- Did the defendant tell you that an important fact was true (i.e. “You’ll be paid 10% above what you are currently make.”)?
- Was this information false?
- Did the defendant know it was false information and say it anyways, or did they honestly believe it was true despite having no reason to know?
- Did the defendant intend for you to rely on that information in making your decision?
- Did you rely on that information in making your decision and was it a big factor?
People have very different ideas of what is an “important fact,” and rightfully so, so California Labor Code § 970 has cleared this up for us. Important facts recognized include the kind, character, or existence of work; the length of employment, compensation, the sanitary or housing conditions surrounding the work, and any labor disputes that are represented (or not for that matter!).
Did you Move? CA Labor Code § 970 is Powerful
It becomes especially egregious when an employee moves from one location to another to take a job based on false promises. LC § 970-972 directly address this problem. If an employer induces someone to move based on false promises, that employer may be liable for double damages and guilty of committing a misdemeanor.
Though fraudulent inducement is not as common as discrimination, harassment, or a variety of other claims, it is still a huge hassle for someone who comes across it. People have uprooted their entire lives, changed their kids’ school, and usually have left a job, because they trusted their new employer. If you feel as though you have been given misrepresentations about a job you recently changed locations for, you should to contact an employment lawyer as soon as possible.
Confusion Still Exists in 2016! California Overtime Laws – Exempt, Non-Exempt, Salary, Hourly, Misclassification, and Statutes of Limitations
Lots of people call our law firm and say, “My boss just switched me from hourly to salary. Is this legal?” What are the implications of being switched? Is it legal? Most importantly, how is that going to affect your pay going forward? This article tries to clear up some of the confusion over this common employment problem. Employment lawyers like us commonly get these questions so we thought we’d write a blog on the subject.
Overtime is the Still the Main Issue in 2016
One of the first things that everyone is concerned about is overtime. Companies often change an employees’ classification in an effort to pay their employees less money for the same amount of work. For example, lots of hourly employees work an hour of overtime work per day. But if they were paid a salary, they wouldn’t get paid that extra hour of OT. So sometimes this change is made for illegal reasons.
It would be helpful to talk about salary versus hourly payment structures. The presumption for California employees is that they are owed some basic employment rights. Along with meal and rest breaks, they are supposed to receive overtime compensation for all hours worked over eight in a day and/or forty in a week. They are also supposed to be paid double-time if they work more than twelve hours in a day. But CA employment law has built several exemptions to these rules. If you are properly classified as an exempt employee, the employer does not have to pay you overtime and can pay you a salary. Generally, employers want to do this because it makes their payroll much more stable and predictable.
Salary, Overtime, and Misclassification
It might be surprising to note that not every employee who is paid a salary is “exempt.” If the employee is misclassified the employer still has an obligation to pay overtime. Or if the employee is considered as non-exempt by the employer, they can still pay the employee a salary, but the employee is still entitled to overtime payments if they work more than 8 hours a day or 40 in a week.
Another common scenario is when an employer classifies an employee as exempt because the employee performs some job duties that constitute exempt duties. BUT, if the employee spends more than 50% of his or her time performing non-exempt duties, then the employee is misclassified and may be owed overtime pay.
Calculating the Overtime Rate in a 2016 Salary Misclassification Case
To figure this out you’ve got to do some basic math. You need to first figure out the employee’s pay rate. You take the employee’s annual salary, divide it by 52 (weeks in a year) to find the weekly salary, and then divide by 40 (the maximum straight-time hours worked). For example, Joe’s annual salary is, conveniently, $52,000/yr. His weekly rate is $1,000/week, and his “regular rate” comes out to be $25/hr.
Now you multiply that pay rate times 1.5. So if your pay rate came out to be $25/hr, your overtime rate would be $37.50/hr. Then you would multiple this overtime rate times the number of overtime hours worked (more than 8 in a day and/or 40 in a week).
Mr. Robertson has handled several misclassification cases where salaried employees have worked for two or three years without overtime compensation. When someone is working 2 OT hours per day that adds up to a large amount.
Statute of Limitations in Misclassification Overtime Cases
California overtime laws allow you to collect back wages for four years if you include an unfair competition cause of action. BUT, this rule is very deceptive and many good people are unable to collect a substantial portion of their lost wages because they delay taking action. Basically, it plays out something like the hypothetical below.
Hypothetical Recovery in Misclassification Case – Two Scenarios:
You worked for a company for four years as a misclassified salaried employee. You were getting paid a salary of $41,600 per year. You worked nine hours a day as opposed to the standard eight. But because you were misclassified and was paid a salary, you didn’t get paid for that extra hour each day.
Under this scenario, if you filed your case on your last day of work, you would be owed $31,200 (a total of $7,800 per year at $30 per overtime hour). This does not include penalties, interests, or attorney’s fees. That is just the overtime amount that you’re owed.
Under the same set of facts, if you quit and wait three years to file your lawsuit, you would only be owed $7,800. Therefore, the statute of limitations ate away at your damages substantially.
Don’t Wait – Call an Employment Lawyer ASAP
Please keep in mind that both of the situations above are more complicated than what is presented and have various exceptions for each. But due to the statutes of limitations, it is wise to call an overtime attorney immediately if you think you’ve been misclassified. If you feel as though you should be receiving overtime, contact Mr. Robertson so that we may give you a free consultation.
In our last article, we took a brief look at what Family and Medical Leave Act and California Family Rights Acts are, who is eligible for them, and the three reasons people are eligible for it. As promised, today we will look at those three reasons a little closer.
The Birth of a Child or Adoption or Foster Care Placement of a Child
Eligible employees may take a paid or unpaid leave to bond with an adopted or foster child or to bond with a newborn. FMLA/CFRA leave includes both maternity and paternity leaves, but does not include pregnancy-related or childbirth-related disabilities. If you are disabled due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions you may, however, take Pregnancy Disability Leave (“PDL”) for six weeks up to four months. The CFRA allows employees an additional twelve weeks of bonding time. The minimum amount of time that may be taken is 2 weeks, but the California Department of General Services will grant a leave of at least one day, but less than two weeks on any two occasions. Leave for an adopted or foster child and childbirth must conclude within 12 months of the birth or placement.
Immediate Family Member with a Serious Health Condition
You may also take leave if you are an eligible employee and need to care for an immediate family member with a serious health condition. An “immediate family member” is a husband or wife as defined or recognized under state law, a biological, adopted, or foster child, stepchild, legal war, or a child of a person standing in the place of the parent who are under 18 years of age. A child who is 18 years of age or older and incapable of caring for themselves due to a mental or physical disability also qualifies. Finally, a biological or adoptive parent, or a person who stood in place of a parent when the employee was a child also applies. Parent-in-laws do not apply
Employee with Serious Health Condition
A serious health condition is an illness, impairment or physical or mental condition that involves:
- Any period of treatment that includes inpatient care in hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility; or
- Any period of more than three consecutive calendar days that involves continuing treatment by a health care provider; or
- Continuing treatment by or under the supervision of a health care provider for a chronic or long-term condition that is incurable, is so serious that if left untreated would result in incapacity for more than three consecutive calendar days, or for prenatal care.
- Restorative dental or plastic surgery after an accident or injury, or the removal of cancerous growths are serious health conditions if all the conditions are met. Cosmetic surgery that is not medically necessary does not qualify, unless inpatient hospital care is required.
If you want to know if your specific reason falls within one of these categories, contact an employment lawyer. If you are have not read the basic overview of FMLA/CFRA leave, scroll down to the next article.
While this has been more in-depth than the last article and we hope this has provided more information so you can conduct research on your own, the laws are still much more complicated than this. All the same, if you have been terminated while on FMLA/CFRA leave you may have a claim for wrongful termination. If so, contact our office for a free consultation with a leave of absence attorney.