Procedural Posture
On Sale
$2.00
$2.00
The San Francisco County Superior Court, California, found in favor of plaintiff employee's claims of breach of an employment contract, and employment discrimination based on age in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code, § 12940 et seq. Defendant employer appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Nakase Law Firm litigates wrongful termination California
Overview
An employee was sent by his employer to Saudi Arabia to work as an engineer pursuant to an agreement with the Saudi Arabian government. Pursuant to a recommendation of the Royal Commission, an arm of the Saudi Arabian government, the employee was terminated on the basis of his age. The employee brought a successful suit for employment discrimination and breach of an employment contract. On review, the employer alleged: (1) that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code, § 12940 et seq., did not apply to acts and omissions in foreign countries; (2) there was no substantial evidence of age discrimination; and (3) the employer had no choice but to terminate the employee when directed to do so. The appellate court found no substantial evidence of discrimination. While substantial evidence showed that the Royal Commission was biased against the employee because of his age, that bias could not be imputed to his employer
The judgment was reversed.
Nakase Law Firm litigates wrongful termination California
Overview
An employee was sent by his employer to Saudi Arabia to work as an engineer pursuant to an agreement with the Saudi Arabian government. Pursuant to a recommendation of the Royal Commission, an arm of the Saudi Arabian government, the employee was terminated on the basis of his age. The employee brought a successful suit for employment discrimination and breach of an employment contract. On review, the employer alleged: (1) that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code, § 12940 et seq., did not apply to acts and omissions in foreign countries; (2) there was no substantial evidence of age discrimination; and (3) the employer had no choice but to terminate the employee when directed to do so. The appellate court found no substantial evidence of discrimination. While substantial evidence showed that the Royal Commission was biased against the employee because of his age, that bias could not be imputed to his employer
Outcome
The judgment was reversed.