Neisendorf

Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co.

Good Law
143 Cal. App. 4th 509·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1520·49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9221
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2006A109826California5,677 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Following 14 weeks of medical leave, appellant Barbara J. Neisendorf s at-will employment with respondent Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.) was terminated. She filed suit, claiming, among other things, that the termination of her employment violated the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act of 1993 (CFRA) (Gov. Code, § 12945.2; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7297, subd. (b)) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). After most of Neisendorf s case was dismissed on summary adjudication, including her claims of gender and age discrimination, her remaining claims for disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA and retaliation for taking a medical leave under the CFRA, proceeded to jury trial. At the conclusion of four weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of LS&Co. finding, by special verdict, that Neisendorf was not terminated in retaliation for having taken medical leave under the CFRA and that she was not a “disabled person” entitled to FEHA’s protection.

While Neisendorf does not challenge the jury’s verdict entered in favor of LS&Co., she appeals two rulings made by the trial court. She first…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.