Employment - A Record of Success

The attorneys of the Employment Law Group continue to add to their record of successful litigation results. Below is a synopsis of some of our successes in recent years.

Trials

Judgment For: The Employment Group

Like all litigators, the attorneys in G&R’s Employment Group enjoy going to trial. But equally important to the Employment Group’s success and reputation in the community is its ability to get cases dismissed before trial, thereby avoiding significant litigation costs for its clients. In the past several months, Employment Group attorneys in G&R’s San Francisco office have enjoyed remarkable success in courtrooms throughout the Bay Area doing just that. Here is a sampling of dispositive rulings in favor of Employment Group clients received during this period:

• Motion for summary judgment granted in a First Amendment retaliation case in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
• Motion for summary judgment granted in a disability discrimination and failure to accommodate case in San Francisco Superior Court
• Motion for summary judgment granted in a First Amendment retaliation and disability discrimination case in the Northern District of California, Oakland Division
• Motion for summary judgment granted in a national origin discrimination case in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
• Demurrer sustained without leave to amend in a disability discrimination case in San Francisco Superior Court
• Motion for summary judgment granted in student-on-student rape case in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division
• Lawsuit abandoned by plaintiff following demurrer sustained with leave to amend in conspiracy to deny federal rights case in San Francisco Superior Court

Gordon & Rees Successfully Defends University of California in Employment Action

Managing Partner, Mike Lucey, who also leads the Labor and Employment Law Group, recently won a major victory and obtained a defense verdict in a protracted employment case against the University of California at Davis in Federal District Court in Sacramento.

The plaintiff, a former graduate student, sued the university after failing to obtain a Ph.D. She alleged gender discrimination and harassment. She also sued her former professor individually for breach of fiduciary duty. The University brought a counterclaim for conversion of the research data that was not returned and for interference with a contract with NASA.

The case was first tried last year and Gordon & Rees won a defense verdict and successfully prosecuted the counter claim on behalf of the University. The plaintiff won a nominal amount on the breach of fiduciary claim against her professor. However, the court granted Mike's motion for a new trial on this part of the verdict. The jury then returned a defense verdict in the re-trial, providing a complete victory for the University and the professor.

Jury Finds Pharmaceutical Company Did Not Discriminate Against Former Sales Associate

Larry E. Wollert, II, a senior associate in the Employment Group in San Francisco, achieved a complete defense verdict on behalf of Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a recent jury trial in Marin County. The plaintiff was a 13-year salesperson who alleged that she was forced to resign because Aventis refused to accommodate her disability. She suffered from ankylosing spondylitis, an auto-immune disease that caused spinal inflammation and made it difficult for her to drive for prolonged periods or work long hours under stressful conditions. Unfortunately, the sales associate position required driving and was by its nature high stress, particularly in plaintiff's sales territory. The plaintiff's condition required her to take more and more time off from work until finally Aventis determined that she could not perform the essential functions of her job regardless of accommodation. She was told that unless she could come up with some alternative, they had no choice but to terminate her. Instead, she resigned to take a position with a competitor and sued Aventis for discrimination, breach of contract, defamation and infliction of emotional distress.

The plaintiff's pretrial demand was approximately $600,000. Aventis felt strongly that they had "done the right thing" and chose to try the case. The judge issued a non-suit on the plaintiff's defamation claim at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case in chief, then the jury deliberated for approximately two hours before returning verdict for the defense on all remaining claims.

Defense verdict after a four week trial in a gender discrimination case under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Alameda Superior Court).

Defense verdict after a two week trial on a race discrimination in housing claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (San Francisco Superior Court).

Defense verdict after a three week trial in gender discrimination and sexual harassment case with allegations of attempted rape by a co-employee (San Francisco Superior Court).

Defense verdict after two week trial in race discrimination and racial harassment/hostile environment case. Jury deliberated 45 minutes (San Francisco Superior Court).

Defense verdict after three week trial of a tenure dispute involving claims of gender and ethnicity/ national origin discrimination by a university professor. This result followed a successful summary judgment motion which resulted in dismissal of the individual defendant and removal of any potential for punitive damages. (San Francisco Superior Court.)

Defense verdict on all discrimination claims in a Title IX gender discrimination case (Eastern District Federal Court.).

Nonsuit during trial in a wrongful termination case (Alameda Superior Court).

Appeals

In a published opinion, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's dismissal of all of the plaintiff's claims on demurrer, including claims for age discrimination, overtime pay and breach of contract (Kim v. Regents of the University of California, 80 Cal. App. 4th 160, 2000).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Gordon & Rees' client in a case brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act (Voytek v. The Regents of the University of California (1996) 77 F.3d 491).

The state trial court granted summary judgment, but then granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and reversed its original ruling in a gender discrimination and sexual harassment case. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and affirmed summary judgment.

State Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment on allegations of racial discrimination, harassment and fraud.

Motions

Summary judgment granted in multi-plaintiff reverse race and age discrimination case (Howard v. Regents of the University of California, 2000 WL 424192 (N.D.Ca. April 12, 2000)).

Summary judgment granted in suit alleging retaliation for opposing race discrimination and related claims (Santa Clara Superior Court).

Summary judgment granted in suit alleging discrimination and harassment based on age, disability and medical condition (San Francisco Superior Court).

Summary judgment granted by Northern District Federal Court on a failure to provide accommodations in employment claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Voytek v. The Regents of the University of California, 1994 WL 478805).

Summary judgment granted in a Title IX discrimination and harassment case (Northern District Federal Court).

University professor's constitutional law claims dismissed in a case involving issues of free speech and academic freedom (Northern District Federal Court).

Summary judgment granted in case involving claims of discrimination and harassment based on race and gender (Alameda Superior Court).

Summary judgment granted in former employee's claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation (Santa Clara Superior Court).