Palma

Palma v. Rite Aid CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 15, 2014B244766California4,681 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Employment, Termination and Complaint Respondent began working as a cashier for appellant in 1986, when she was twenty years old. She worked for appellant until March 2011 when she was terminated after appellant concluded an investigation of charges respondent had asked employees to work “off the clock” and violated employer timekeeping policies. Respondent filed a complaint against appellant and respondent’s former supervisor, Jilbert Shahdaryan, on July 14, 2011.2 The complaint contained eight causes of action for: failure to accommodate and engage in the interactive process, retaliation, discrimination and harassment in violation of the FEHA (first); discrimination and harassment in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) (§ 12945.2) (second); age and gender discrimination in violation of the FEHA (third and fourth); wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (fifth); breach of contract (sixth); intentional infliction of emotional distress (seventh); and defamation (eighth). Respondent dismissed her claims for CFRA harassment, age discrimination and defamation prior to trial and the intentional infliction of emotional distress…

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.