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.

FedEx Worker Claims Wrongful Termination, Harassment, and Discrimination

In a recent case, a FedEx worker appealed the trial court’s decision in a wrongful termination case.

The Case: Freem v. The Superior Court

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

The Case No.: 06-07-2024

The Plaintiff: Freem v. The Superior Court

The plaintiff in the case, Mitchell Freem, worked for FedEx for 18 years, starting as a part-time material handler loading packages and ending his career as a senior vehicle technician for Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), reporting to Fleet Manager Andrew Sweet. Freem filed a California employment law complaint alleging Sweet harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against him because of his age. Freem also claimed FedEx wrongfully terminated his employment.

The Defendant: Freem v. The Superior Court

The Defendant in the case, FedEx, also faces allegations that Freem’s employment was wrongfully terminated in May 2018. Freem claims that FedEx’s reasons for terminating his employment were a pretext for age discrimination and Freem’s reporting of unlawful conduct in the FedEx workplace. FedEx claimed they terminated Freem’s employment due to falsified time cards, repair orders, and DOT PM forms that indicated completed work on specified FedEx vehicles that he had not performed. Freem claims his handling of the documentation was a direct result of instruction and harassment from his supervisor. FedEx argued there was no evidence supporting Freem’s wrongful termination claim that FedEx’s reasons for terminating his employment were untrue. The Defendant also argued that the internal complaint lodged by Freem regarding Sweet’s behavior listed multiple comments the supervisor made, and none were based on age and did not seem severe enough to be considered harassment. FedEx claims Freem failed to present evidence of harassment or discrimination and that following Freem’s internal complaint, the company investigated and found no evidence of harassment, discrimination, or workplace retaliation. The company further claims that it took reasonable steps to prevent such actions.  

The Case: Freem v. The Superior Court

In May 2022, FedEx and Sweet moved for summary judgment, each seeking judgment in their favor on the employment law complaint. Freem appealed the trial court’s decision, claiming the court incorrectly granted summary adjudication on his claims for age discrimination, harassment based on age, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  

On Appeal: Freem v. The Superior Court

On appeal, the court found that Freem presented no evidence that any harassment was based on Freem’s age, that Freem did not come close to carrying his burden of presenting evidence supporting claims that age discrimination motivated his termination of employment and that the record does not show any evidence that FedEx intentionally discriminated based on age. It was noted that while the Defendant submitted various evidential pieces to refute claims of discrimination and harassment and support the stated reasons behind the firing of Freem, Freem failed to provide any evidence to the contrary other than vague declarations. For example, Sweet reviewed security video of the shop where Freem worked and compared it to the entries on Freem’s time cards with an Excel spreadsheet documenting the discrepancies he noticed. Freem stated that the discrepancies could be explained by a standard policy/practice of supervisors encouraging techs to alter their billing to eliminate “fluff” and calling the evidence into question by pointing out that the video itself was no longer available for verification. However, he did not provide evidence to contradict the defense’s claims. The appellate court found that Freem’s harassment and discrimination claims were not viable based on the evidence provided and that the trial court was correct in granting FedEx and Sweet’s motion for summary adjudication regarding the FEHA claims.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys can help you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Google Faces Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination Allegations

The Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC case highlights several common labor law violations often seen in California workplaces, from disability discrimination to workplace retaliation.

The Case: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

The Case No.: 22CV399886

The Plaintiff: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

The plaintiff, Stayce Cavanaugh, is an experienced software engineer and former Google employee. Cavanaugh was employed by Google from 2012 until she was terminated in 2020. Cavanaugh started work in 2012 as a UI developer for Wildfire (Wildfire Interactive Inc.), a software development company developing a social marketing app that measures the "presence" of businesses on social platforms. When Google acquired Wildfire, they assigned Cavanaugh to a UX Designer role. A few years later, in 2015, Cavanaugh transferred to YouTube (a Google subsidiary) as a UX Engineer. Then, in 2017, she transferred again to Area 120, an incubator inside of Google, as a UX Engineer and web developer. During her time with the company in various roles, Cavanaugh received consistently positive performance reviews, bonuses, equity grants, and raises, indicating she excelled in her work. During her employment with various Google companies, Cavanaugh built the YouTube keyboard used on TVs and game consoles and co-created ChatBase (a cloud-based tool that can integrate with Google accounts).

History of the Case: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

The plaintiff claims she suffered discrimination and mistreatment due to her disabilities, which include a generalized autoimmune disease and endometriosis. According to the complaint, Cavanaugh first disclosed her disabilities to Google around 2013. Her supervisor allegedly responded by notifying her teammates of her diagnosis (telling them Cavanaugh needed to take time off for "painful periods)" and offering her unwanted natural healing remedies. Following a hospitalization related to her disability, Google allowed Cavanaugh to work from home on a reduced schedule for a month. At that point, HR suggested a leave of absence, which she took. Cavanaugh was on leave from March 24, 2018, through May 22, 2019. When Cavanaugh returned to work, Google advised her that her previous Area 120 position was backfilled during her absence. Google gave her a limited time to search for a new role, and she picked up a 6-month temporary "bungee" role with Crowdsource. But only after the Global Program Manager indicated it could become a permanent position at the end of the term. The temp position was part-time, but she worked 25 to 30 hours weekly. However, in April 2020, Cavanaugh was given 60 days to find a new role, or her employment would be terminated. She applied for 18 different available roles and was a finalist for several. However, on April 25, Cavanaugh became ill, and the severe COVID-19 symptoms severely affected her interview process. She even fainted during one of her follow-up interviews. As a result, Cavanaugh requested a medical leave based on her physician's recommendations, but Google denied her request based on the number of hours worked in the year before requesting the leave. She then requested an extension of her job search deadline because she showed years of full-time employment before the part-time accommodations. This request was also denied, and Cavanaugh's employment was terminated.

The Defendant: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

According to the complaint, the defendant, Google LLC, faces multiple labor violation allegations, including:

• Disability discrimination in violation of FEHA

• Failure to accommodate for disability in violation of FEHA

• Retaliation in violation of FEHA

• Interference in violation of CFRA

• Retaliation in violation of CFRA

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

The Case: Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC

In the Stayce Cavanaugh vs Google LLC case, the plaintiff alleges that Google denied her accommodation requests, made derogatory comments about her disabilities, and ultimately terminated her employment. She seeks relief through economic and non-economic damages, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief.

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