Can You Sue for Wrongful Termination After a Mandatory Polygraph Test in California?

In McDoniel v. Kavry Management, LLC, the California Court of Appeals addressed a first-impression question with big ripple effects for workplace investigations: can an employer’s violation of California’s ban on mandatory polygraph testing support a wrongful termination claim based on public policy? The court said yes, holding that Labor Code section 432.2 can serve as the public policy foundation for a wrongful termination lawsuit when an employee is fired after a coerced polygraph test. The decision is a sharp reminder that “internal investigation” does not mean “anything goes,” especially when employee privacy rights are at stake.

Case: McDoniel v. Kavry Management, LLC

Court: California Court of Appeals

Case No.: D084660 (Superior Court No. CIVDS1926005)

The Plaintiff: McDoniel v. Kavry Management

Steven McDoniel is the plaintiff in this case. He worked as an assistant grower at Kavry Management, LLC, a licensed marijuana cultivation facility. After the theft, which occurred shortly after he was hired, McDoniel was directed to participate in a polygraph administered by the company’s owner. McDoniel alleged that the test was treated as mandatory; he was not given proper written notice of his statutory right to refuse, and he was terminated after allegedly failing the polygraph.

Who Are the Defendants in the Case?

Kavry Management, LLC is the defendant in the case.

Kavry is described as a licensed marijuana cultivation business. In this lawsuit, Kavry was accused of requiring employees to submit to polygraph testing as part of an internal response to theft and then using the results to justify termination, allegedly without complying with the notice-and-consent protections required by California law.

A Brief History of the McDoniel v. Kavry Management Case

After being terminated, McDoniel filed suit against Kavry, asserting claims including wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The case went to trial, and a jury found Kavry liable for violating Labor Code section 432.2. The jury awarded McDoniel $100,000 in non-economic damages.

Kavry appealed. On appeal, the court upheld the jury’s finding and damages award, concluding there was substantial evidence the polygraph was mandatory for continued employment and that proper notice of rights was not provided. However, the Court of Appeal reversed an attorney fee award based on the timing and applicability of the fee statute relied on by the trial court.

The Main Question in the Case: McDoniel v. Kavry Management

Can an employer’s violation of California Labor Code section 432.2, which prohibits mandatory polygraph testing and requires notice of the right to refuse, serve as the public policy basis for a wrongful termination claim when an employee is fired after a polygraph exam tied to continued employment?

The Allegations: McDoniel v. Kavry Management

The case description includes several key allegations:

1. Polygraph testing was treated as mandatory.

After theft of cash and marijuana products, Kavry allegedly arranged for a polygraph examiner to test employees, including McDoniel. The process was allegedly presented as something employees were instructed to participate in, not a voluntary option.

2. The employer provided no written notice of statutory rights.

McDoniel alleged he did not receive written notice explaining his rights under Labor Code section 432.2, including the right to refuse the polygraph without retaliation or termination.

3. The employee was terminated based on the polygraph outcome.

McDoniel alleged he “failed” the polygraph and was terminated as a result, which he claimed was unlawful when the test itself was coerced and not handled in compliance with the statute.

4. The worker was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy.

The plaintiff argued that Labor Code section 432.2 expresses a strong public policy protecting employee privacy and preventing coercive polygraph practices, and that his firing in connection with that unlawful process supported the wrongful termination claim.

What the Court of Appeal Decided

Based on the verified summary you provided, the Court of Appeal made three core determinations:

* Labor Code section 432.2 can support a wrongful termination claim based on a violation of public policy, including in cases where an employee is terminated after a mandatory polygraph test.

* There was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s conclusion that the exam was mandatory for continued employment and that Kavry did not provide proper notice of the right to refuse.

* The court upheld the jury’s $100,000 noneconomic damages award, but reversed the attorney fee award because the fee statute at issue did not apply retroactively to McDoniel’s employment timeline.

Key Takeaways for Employees

If your employer asks you to take a polygraph test, your rights may depend on the specifics of your situation, but this case highlights a few practical realities in California:

* Employees may have legal protections if a polygraph is presented as a condition of keeping their job.

* When the statute applies, written notice of rights is not optional.

* If an employee gets fired because they were forced to take a coerced polygraph test, they might have a valid wrongful termination claim under public policy protections.

FAQ: McDoniel v. Kavry Management

Q: What does Labor Code section 432.2 prohibit?

A: It generally prohibits employers from requiring employees or applicants to take a polygraph test as a condition of employment or continued employment and includes notice-related protections.

Q: What does “wrongful termination in violation of public policy” mean?

A: It is a claim alleging an employee was fired for reasons that violate an important public policy expressed in law, such as statutes designed to protect workers from coercive or abusive practices.

Q: Why did the court say this was an “issue of first impression”?

A: Because the Court of Appeal treated the question of whether a section 432.2 violation could support this specific type of wrongful termination claim as a new legal question not previously decided in that way.

Q: What damages were awarded in this case?

A: The jury gave the plaintiff $100,000 in non-economic damages, which the Court of Appeals agreed with, but the Court of Appeals also reversed the decision on the separate attorney fee award because of some timing and applicability issues.

Q: Does a failed polygraph automatically justify termination?

A: This case shows how relying on polygraph tests can be risky legally, especially when people feel like they have to take them or when their rights aren’t protected enough.

If you believe your employer required a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment, failed to provide the required notice of your rights, or terminated you for refusing a coercive workplace practice, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.

California Court Clarifies Limits in Pacific Gas & Electric Wrongful Termination Case

In a recent decision that will shape how employment lawsuits are litigated in California, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District clarified that employees cannot recover damages for defamation when the alleged defamatory statements are tied directly to the same conduct underlying a wrongful termination claim. The case, Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 108 Cal. App. 5th 301 (2025) is a good example of how overlapping tort claims are evaluated during wrongful termination cases.

Case: Todd Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Court: California Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Division Three

Case No.: 108 Cal. App. 5th 301 (2025)

Get to Know the Plaintiff in the Case, Todd Hearn:

Todd Hearn, the plaintiff in the case, was an experienced lineman for Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). Hearn was suspended and later terminated from his lineman position after the company conducted an internal investigation into alleged timekeeping and GPS record discrepancies indicating Hearn's reported work hours were inaccurate. According to the company’s investigation, there were inconsistencies between Hearn’s reported work hours and the GPS location data of his vehicle.

Hearn argued that the company investigated his reported hours in retaliation after he complained about unsafe working conditions. After his termination, he filed a civil lawsuit asserting multiple claims:

• Retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation),

• Retaliation for complaints about unsafe conditions under Labor Code § 6310,

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and

• Defamation based on the allegedly false information circulated during the investigation.

Both the retaliation and defamation claims proceeded to trial.

Get to Know the Defendant: Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) is one of California’s largest public utilities providers. In response to Hearn's allegations, the company insisted that the investigation was legitimate and adhered to company protocol. PG&E denied retaliatory motive allegations and argued that its managers acted within the scope of their employment when they reported and documented the alleged timekeeping discrepancies. At trial, the jury sided with PG&E on the retaliation claim but found in favor of Hearn on the defamation claim, awarding him damages for harm allegedly caused by statements in the internal investigation report. PG&E appealed the defamation verdict, arguing that Hearn’s defamation claim was derivative of his wrongful termination claim and therefore barred under California law.

A History of the Case: Appeal and Reversal

On appeal, the jury’s defamation award was reversed, with the California Court of Appeals ruling that an employee cannot obtain separate tort damages for defamation when the claim arises from the same conduct or injury as a wrongful termination claim.

The Court’s reasoning emphasized two key principles:

• Defamation claims must be based on conduct distinct from the termination itself.

• Damages for defamation cannot be identical to those resulting from the termination.

Because the alleged defamatory statements—contained in internal investigative reports—were created as part of the disciplinary and termination process, the Court held that Hearn’s defamation claim was not independent from his termination. The Court concluded that Hearn could not “recover damages for wrongful termination by recasting his claim as one for defamation.” He had not demonstrated any reputational harm beyond the financial and emotional damages associated with losing his job.

The Main Question Being Considered: Can Termination-Related Statements Support a Defamation Claim?

The central issue in Hearn v. PG&E was whether an employee can pursue a defamation claim when the allegedly defamatory statements are part of the termination process. The Court’s answer: No—unless the statements or damages are distinct from the termination itself. So communications or reports created during internal investigations (such as disciplinary findings or HR summaries) are generally protected when they directly relate to an employee’s termination. However, defamatory statements made after termination or outside the scope of an internal investigation may still give rise to valid claims.

Why This Case Matters to California Workers and Employers

The Hearn decision provides critical clarity for both sides of employment disputes.

For Employees: The case underscores the importance of identifying distinct harms when bringing multiple claims. If all alleged damages stem from termination itself, courts may reject related defamation claims as duplicative.

For Employers: The ruling in the case reinforces that internal investigation communications (when made in good faith and within the scope of employment) are generally protected from defamation liability. However, companies should use caution as statements made outside disciplinary channels or shared with individuals not directly involved in the investigation could still expose employers to risk.

The case ultimately strengthens existing legal protections for fair internal investigations while confirming limits on overlapping tort recovery in employment cases.

FAQ: Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Q: What did the Court of Appeal decide in Hearn v. PG&E?

A: The Court ruled that employees cannot recover defamation damages when the alleged defamatory statements are part of the same conduct underlying a wrongful termination claim.

Q: Why did the Court reverse the jury’s verdict?

A: The Court found that Hearn’s alleged reputational harm was not distinct from his loss of employment. The investigative reports that formed the basis of his defamation claim were created as part of the termination process itself.

Q: What does this mean for California employees bringing multiple claims?

A: Employees must show that each claim—such as defamation, retaliation, or wrongful termination—is based on separate conduct or results in distinct damages. Otherwise, the claims may be deemed duplicative.

Q: How can employers use this decision in future cases?

A: Employers can cite Hearn v. PG&E to defend against defamation claims tied to internal investigations, provided those communications were limited to individuals with a legitimate business reason to receive them.

If you believe you were wrongfully terminated or defamed during a workplace investigation, the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. Contact our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to schedule a free consultation and learn more about your rights under California labor law.

California Wrongful Termination & Retaliation Claim: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services, LLC

While labor law has built-in protections for employees, in some instances, employers violate the rights of their own workers. Jermaine Grandberry, a former Northwest Pallet Services employee, claims that his employer violated labor law by retaliating and discriminating against him in response to his complaints about unsafe working conditions and discrimination in the workplace. In response, Grandberry filed a California lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, retaliation, and discrimination.

Case: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services, LLC

Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

Case No.: BCV-19-101284

The Plaintiff: Former Northwest Pallet Services Worker

Jermaine Grandberry, the plaintiff, is a former employee of Northwest Pallet Services, LLC. Grandberry alleges that the company subjected him to workplace retaliation and wrongful termination after he reported unsafe working conditions and discriminatory practices on the job. Additionally, he claims that his concerns were made in good faith to protect the safety of himself and his co-workers.

The Defendant: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services

The defendant in the case is Northwest Pallet Services, LLC, a pallet recycling and distribution company. Grandberry claims the company actively retaliated against him after he reported workplace hazards (which is a legally protected activity).

History of the Case: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services, LLC

Grandberry allegedly reported unsafe workplace conditions (an action defined as a legally protected activity). According to the complaint, the company allegedly responded to his complaints with discriminatory treatment and retaliation, which led to his termination.

What is a Legally Protected Activity?

A legally protected activity for the purposes of labor law refers to an action taken by an employee to assert their rights or report potential violations of employment laws like discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. Actions taken to oppose discrimination include participating in a discrimination proceeding, seeking reasonable accommodations (based on disability or religious beliefs), reporting harassment or discrimination, etc.

The Main Question Being Considered in the Case:

The central issue in this case is whether Northwest Pallet Services terminated Grandberry because of his complaints. Doing so is an act of workplace retaliation in response to a protected workplace safety complaint and allegations of discrimination, thereby violating California labor laws and public policy.

Does This Case Matter to California Employees?

This case highlights California's robust legal protections for employees who report unsafe working conditions or discrimination on the job. Employers who retaliate against their workers when they make these types of reports could face significant legal liability that may come with hefty consequences. Employees should understand that retaliation for protected complaints is prohibited under California law.

FAQ: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services, LLC

Q: If a California employee reports unsafe working conditions, can they be fired?

A: No. Workplace retaliation in response to an employee reporting workplace safety concerns in good faith is prohibited under the California Labor Code.

Q: What laws protect California employees from retaliation?

A: California Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 6310 protect employees from retaliation after they have submitted workplace safety or discrimination complaints.

Q: Does wrongful termination include retaliation claims?

A: Yes. If an employee is terminated due to protected complaints, it can constitute wrongful termination, and both violations can be included in the complaint.

Q: How soon should an employee act after being wrongfully terminated?

A: As quickly as possible as there are strict deadlines for filing claims under California law.

If you believe you've been wrongfully terminated or retaliated against after reporting unsafe working conditions or discrimination, our legal team can help. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our experienced Los Angeles employment law attorneys fight to protect the rights of workers across California, with offices serving clients in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Hearn v. PG&E: What California Employees Need to Know About Defamation Claims After Termination

When you’re fired from a job (especially if you believe it was wrongful), your first instinct might be to protect your reputation as well as your livelihood. Sometimes that means filing both a wrongful termination claim and a defamation claim. But a recent California Court of Appeals decision, Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., shows why that strategy can be tricky.

The court made it clear: If your defamation claim is based on the same conduct that led to your termination, you likely won’t be able to recover damages for it.

Case: Hearn v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co

Court: Court of Appeal, California, First Appellate District Division Three

Case No.: A167742, A167991

Hearn v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co: A Brief History of the Case

Todd Hearn, a PG&E lineman, was suspended and later terminated after an internal investigation found discrepancies in his time records. The investigation included witness statements and GPS data.

Hearn sued PG&E, claiming:

• Retaliation for reporting safety violations (Labor Code § 1102.5)

• Retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions (Labor Code § 6310)

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

• Defamation

By the time the case reached trial, only the retaliation claim under § 1102.5 and the defamation claim remained. The jury sided with PG&E on retaliation but awarded Hearn damages for defamation. PG&E appealed.

The Court’s Decision: Hearn v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co

The California Court of Appeals reversed the defamation award, holding:

Defamation claims must be separate from termination conduct. If the alleged defamatory statements are part of the firing process—such as in investigative reports—they cannot be the basis for separate damages.

Damages must be distinct from job loss. You can’t recover reputational damages if they’re tied only to losing your job, without evidence of broader harm to your reputation outside the termination.

In Hearn’s case, the allegedly defamatory statements were made in the course of PG&E’s internal investigation and were directly tied to the termination decision, meaning the defamation claim couldn’t stand.

What California Workers Should Know About Hearn v. Pac. Gas & Elec.

If you’ve been wrongfully terminated, you may also feel your employer made false statements about you. But this ruling shows that when those statements are part of the termination process itself, your ability to claim separate defamation damages is limited.

Key points to remember: Wrongful Termination & Defamation Claims

Separate the issues. If you believe you were defamed, document instances where false statements were made outside of formal HR or disciplinary processes, especially if they were shared with people who did not need to know.

Look for harm beyond job loss. Rather than focus solely on the termination itself, you need to demonstrate specific reputational damages and lost job opportunities caused by the defamatory statements.

Act quickly. California’s statute of limitations for defamation is generally one year from the date the statement was made.

FAQ for Wrongfully Terminated Employees:

Q: Can I still sue for defamation if my employer made false statements during my firing?

A: Yes, but only if you can prove the statements went beyond what was necessary for the termination process and caused separate harm to your reputation.

Q: What kind of evidence helps in a defamation claim?

A: Copies of emails, written statements, or testimony from people who heard the false statements—especially if they were made outside HR or to people unrelated to your termination.

Q: What should I do first if I think this happened to me?

A: Consult an experienced employment attorney right away. They can help determine if your defamation claim is distinct enough from your termination claim to be viable.

If you believe you’ve been wrongfully terminated and defamed in California, our legal team can help. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our experienced Los Angeles employment law attorneys fight for California workers' rights, with offices serving clients in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Morgue Attendant Wins Wrongful Termination Suit: He's Nowhere to Be Found

In recent news, an Alameda County Superior Court jury awarded a plaintiff who claimed wrongful termination $2.4 million. There was only one problem: no one knew where to find the plaintiff.

Case: Daniel Ridge v. Alameda Health System/Highland Hospital

Court: Alameda County Superior Court

Case No.: RG17847260

Daniel Ridge v. Alameda Health System/Highland Hospital: The Plaintiff's Allegations

Daniel Ridge worked as a morgue attendant for a hospital in Oakland from June 2006 to 2013. For years, Ridge received positive feedback in his evaluations, but near the end of 2013, Ridge took a leave of absence to address PTSD that had been left untreated for decades. After taking leave, Ridge was dismissed from his position. Ridge filed a lawsuit against Alameda Health System, claiming wrongful termination. In essence, he launched a legal battle against his former employer while simultaneously fighting his own mental health demons.

Key Legal Question: Ridge v. Alameda Health System

At the heart of the case is the question: Did the Alameda Health System unlawfully terminate Daniel Ridge's employment in violation of his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), particularly in light of his mental health condition and ongoing protected medical leave? Additionally, Ridge's complaint included allegations regarding wages and hour law.

Does this Case Carry Any Significant Legal Implications?

The legal implications of Ridge v. Alameda Health System are significant, particularly for California employers navigating medical leave, mental health accommodations, and alleged wrongful termination. This case reinforces that:

• Medical leave rights are not optional;

• Mental health accommodations are legally protected;

• Retaliation or termination during protected leave can lead to costly judgments and

• Employers must handle all medical leave matters with transparency, documentation, and compliance.

Ridge v. Alameda Health System: The Employer's Position

Alameda Health System, the defendant, operates five hospitals and four wellness centers, offering 800 beds and employing approximately 1,000 physicians. Ridge claims his former employer, Alameda Health Systems, dismissed him from his job at a county morgue because he took leave (in compliance with labor law).

Why This Case Matters: Ridge v. Alameda Health System

This case underscores the critical protections California law provides to employees facing mental health challenges, particularly regarding medical leave and workplace safety. It sends a clear message that terminating an employee during a protected leave—especially after they've raised health or safety concerns—can result in significant legal and financial consequences.

What Comes Next for Ridge v. Alameda Health System

Eight years after the initial wrongful termination filing, the judge awarded 49-year-old Ridge $2.4 million; however, Ridge was not in court when the judge announced the verdict in his favor. Ridge's attorneys are unable to locate him. While Ridge managed to file suit to protect his rights after his employer dismissed him from his job at the county morgue, the case dragged on as his mental health deteriorated. Ridge's struggle to maintain his mental health became so difficult that he was unfit to testify in court and eventually fell into homelessness. Estranged from his family (including his 10-year-old son), Ridge is assumed to be somewhere amongst the homeless population in the Oakland area. His attorneys are not optimistic that they'll be able to locate him among the thousands of homeless people in the area.

FAQ: Ridge v. Alameda Health System

Q: Can an employer terminate an employee who is out on medical leave for mental health reasons?

A: No. Both the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protect employees who take medical leave for conditions like PTSD or depression. As long as the employee follows reasonable procedures (e.g., providing documentation), termination during this time can be considered a form of discrimination or workplace retaliation.

Q: What happens if an employer fires a worker before their leave paperwork is processed?

A: Such an action is a high-risk move for employers. In Ridge's case, the hospital allegedly fired him immediately after he returned with his FMLA paperwork. Employers should be aware that the courts view terminations that coincide with leave requests or active medical leave as suspicious, and such actions can easily lead to wrongful termination claims.

Q: Does California labor law consider mental health conditions the same as physical disabilities?

A: Yes. FEHA considers conditions like PTSD and depression disabilities, so employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations, such as time off or adjustments to the workplace.

Q: What happens if an employee raises workplace safety concerns before being terminated?

A: If an employee reports unsafe or unsanitary working conditions—especially involving health hazards—and is then terminated, this may be considered illegal retaliation under California Labor Code Section 1102.5. In Ridge's case, his concerns about toxic chemicals and morgue conditions added weight to his claims.

Q: Can a jury award damages even if the employee claiming wrongful termination isn't present in court to testify?

A: Yes, if a plaintiff in a wrongful termination lawsuit is not present in court and cannot testify, the court can still find in their favor. Ridge's attorneys presented compelling evidence of employer wrongdoing, which resulted in a substantial jury award even though Ridge was not present.

Do you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit? Please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Rivisn'te, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Former TSA Transportation Officer Claims Wrongful Termination

After his recent termination, a former TSA Transportation Officer argues wrongful termination and contends he was fired just 56 days after he complained about a denied FMLA leave request.

Case Details: Kama v. Mayorkas, United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.: 107 F.4th 1054 (9th Cir. 2024)

The Plaintiff: Meyer Kama v. Mayorkas

The plaintiff, Meyer Kama, is a former TSA Transportation Officer. After his recent termination, Kama claimed he was fired in retaliation. The termination occurred just 56 days after he complained about a denied request for intermittent leave under FMLA. According to Kama, the termination had "temporal proximity" to his EEO complaint.

The Defendant: Meyer Kama v. Mayorkas

The defendant argued that Kama's termination was based on his refusal to cooperate with the company's investigation into his (and other TSA officers') improper receipt of compensation in exchange for serving as personal representatives to employees during internal investigations.

Case History: Meyer Kama v. Mayorkas

After considering the arguments, the district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that temporal proximity alone was not enough to establish retaliation in all cases. Additionally, the court pointed out that 56 days was a long time in comparison to "only a few days," as was the situation in cases cited to support Kama's argument. The court also indicated that there was a fairly close temporal link between Kama's refusal to cooperate with the investigation and his termination. The district court also indicated that the TSA must have "wide latitude" when determining the terms of their screeners' employment. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Top Performer Claims Age Discrimination &Wrongful Termination

After finding himself out of a job after a company restructure, a top performer claims he was wrongfully terminated due to age discrimination.

The Case: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

The Case No.: B318216

The Plaintiff: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The plaintiff in the case, Gregory J. Kasparian, is a former employee of Edge Systems LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company (Hydrafacial). Kasparian, a resident of Georgia with a 2nd home in Pennsylvania, started working with the company in 2012 at the age of 51. After an interview in California, he was hired and held the position of Corporate Account Director (CAD), running the East Coast domestic sales team. Kasparian was a top performer who produced consistently good sales numbers. During his last 18 months with the company, Kasparian sold just under $1 million of “rolling sales” and was encouraged as a top achiever during the last two years of his time with the company, even earning a spot in the coveted “Presidents’ Club,” a revenue based performance award. Hydrafacial terminated Kasparian’s employment in July 2018 due to a corporate realignment. At that time, Kasparian was 57 years old. About five other employees in corporate account sales were let go - all over 40. Kasparian sued his former employer in Los Angeles County Superior Court for age discrimination and related causes of action, and causes of action based on Labor Code violations and breach of contract stemming from Hydrafacial's alleged failure to pay him earned commissions.

The Defendant: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

The defendant in the case is Edge Sys. (aka Hydrafacial). The company designs, manufactures, promotes, and sells aesthetic products and technology. The company’s corporate office is located in Long Beach, California. While the company maintains various regional sales areas throughout the nation, the only physical locations they maintain are in the state of California. Vice President of Sales Dan Watson was the plaintiff’s supervisor at Hydrafacial from March 2017 until Kasparian’s employment was terminated.

The Case: Kasparian v. Edge Sys.

Before Hydrafacial’s realignment, there were three CADs: Kasparian (age 57), Tracie Wertz (age 53), and Dan Townsley (age 39). Kasparian claims his numbers were higher than both Wertz and Townsley, and he had seniority over both, yet he was the only one of the three that wasn’t offered a new position in the company. Kasparian alleged Hydrafacial failed to pay his full commissions, and terminated him to avoid having to full the obligation. The two parties entered a stipulated judgment in favor of Hydrafacial and against Kasparian that the court signed and filed on November 29, 2021. On appeal, the court found that Kasparian failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that his age was a substantial motivator for his termination. The appellate court concluded the trial court properly granted summary adjudication and affirmed the judgment in favor of respondent Edge Systems LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company.

If you have questions about filing a wrongful termination lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced California employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.