Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-28-2024
Case Style:
Erika Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc. et al.
Case Number: 34-2019-00270758
Judge: Richard K. Sueyoshi
Court: Superior Court, Sacramento County, California
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: John H. Adams, Jr. and Douglas L. Ropel
Description:
Sacramento, California employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a harassment, discrimination, and retaliation theories.
Appellant Erika Paleny sued respondents Fireplace Products U.S., Inc.(Fireplace Products),and Sabah Salah (collectively, respondents), arguing that she experienced harassment, discrimination, and retaliation after she informed her manager,Salah,that she would be undergoing oocyte (egg)retrieval proceduresto both donate and freeze eggs for herself for potential use at some unknown time in the future. The superiorcourt granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment based on its finding that the egg retrieval and freezing proceduresdid not qualify as a pregnancy-related medical condition or disability and were,therefore,not protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)(Gov. Code, §12900 et seq.).1Paleny appeals, arguing the superiorcourt’s ruling erroneously construed the relevant statutesto deny her protection under the FEHA.
The complaint allegedthat appellant began working for respondents as a full-time administrative assistant in May 2018.In October 2018, appellant informed respondents that she had begunprocedures necessary for egg retrieval.Appellant underwent these procedures from October of 2018 through her termination in February2019.In November 2018, appellant’s supervisor, Salah,informed appellant that shedisapproved of the procedures.According to appellant, Salah then harassed appellant for needing time off for the procedures. Appellant claimed she expressed disagreement with Salah’s position, which further created hostilityin the workplace.In earlyFebruary 2019, appellant informed Salah that she would need additional time off for another appointment related to her procedures. Appellant alleged Salah became angry,andappellant’s employment was terminated.
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: