Law Firm for Wrongful Termination Due to Breast Cancer Serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Ventura Counties
Understanding Breast Cancer and Your Rights
A breast cancer diagnosis can be life-altering, presenting both emotional and physical challenges. On top of these personal struggles, facing wrongful dismissal or wrongful discharge due to breast cancer can add significant stress. Our California employment law firm is here to ensure you receive the protection and fair treatment you deserve during this critical time. For more information about breast cancer, its treatment, and support resources, visit the American Cancer Society or BreastCancer.org
Breast Cancer and Workplace Rights
Managing a career while undergoing treatment for breast cancer can be daunting. It is important to understand that the law safeguards your right to maintain your job despite your health condition. However, some employers may still engage in discriminatory practices, resulting in wrongful termination due to breast cancer. The Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is dedicated to defending your rights and ensuring you receive the justice you deserve.
What Constitutes Wrongful Termination Due to Breast Cancer?
Wrongful termination due to breast cancer occurs when an employer unlawfully dismisses an employee because of their diagnosis or treatment. Federal and state laws provide robust protections to prevent such unjust actions. It is essential to understand these laws if you are facing wrongful job termination due to breast cancer. Key legislations include:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
This federal law prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including breast cancer. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, enabling employees to manage their treatment while continuing to work.
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
FEHA offers extensive protections to employees in California, ensuring they are not discriminated against or wrongfully terminated due to breast cancer. It requires employers to engage in an interactive process to accommodate employees’ medical needs.
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
This federal law allows eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for serious health conditions, including breast cancer. It ensures employees can take necessary time off for treatment without the fear of losing their jobs.
California Family Rights Act (CFRA)
Similar to FMLA, CFRA provides eligible employees in California with the right to take leave for serious health conditions, including breast cancer, ensuring job protection during this critical time.
Recognizing Wrongful Termination, Wrongful Dismissal, and Wrongful Discharge Due to Breast Cancer
Identifying wrongful termination, wrongful dismissal, or wrongful discharge due to breast cancer involves recognizing various forms of discrimination and retaliation. There are countless ways in which this can occur, so the best approach is to consult an experienced wrongful job termination attorney.
The Impact of Breast Cancer on Employment
A breast cancer diagnosis and its treatment often require significant time and flexibility, including frequent medical appointments, treatments, and recovery periods. These demands can sometimes clash with an employer’s expectations, leading to unjust actions like wrongful termination, wrongful dismissal, or wrongful discharge due to breast cancer. It’s important to know that the law is on your side, ensuring you have the necessary support to manage your health without losing your livelihood.
Legal Protections Against Wrongful Termination, Wrongful Dismissal, and Wrongful Discharge Due to Breast Cancer
Employees diagnosed with breast cancer have the right to reasonable accommodations, which might include flexible working hours, adjustments to workload, or temporary leave for treatment. Employers are legally obligated to engage in an interactive process to identify and provide these accommodations unless it causes undue hardship to the business.
Attorneys in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura for Unlawful Termination Due to Breast Cancer
We regularly and routinely handle cases involving unlawful termination, wrongful dismissal, and wrongful discharge. Here’s how we can assist you:
Comprehensive Case Evaluation: We offer a complimentary evaluation to discuss the specifics of your situation and determine the best course of action.
Investigating Your Case: We will thoroughly review your employment history, medical records, and any correspondence with your employer to gather evidence of unjust firing, wrongful firing, or wrongful discharge due to breast cancer.
Filing Claims: We assist in filing claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to ensure your rights are protected.
Seeking Compensation: We work tirelessly to secure compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, and any other damages resulting from your wrongful firing, wrongful dismissal, or wrongful discharge due to breast cancer.
Advocating for You: We represent you in negotiations, hearings, and court proceedings to ensure you receive the justice and compensation you deserve.
Taking Action Against Wrongful Termination, Wrongful Dismissal, and Wrongful Discharge Due to Breast Cancer
Understanding the complexities of unlawful termination law requires expertise and experience. If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated, wrongfully dismissed, or wrongfully discharged due to breast cancer, it is crucial to seek legal advice to explore your options and protect your rights. Our qualified attorneys can help navigate the legal intricacies and ensure that you receive the justice you deserve.
Contact Us Today
If you believe you have been a victim of wrongful termination, wrongful dismissal, or wrongful discharge due to breast cancer, don’t hesitate to reach out for a confidential consultation. Our compassionate and skilled attorneys are here to support you and fight for your rights every step of the way.
Schedule Your Free Consultation
Contact our California employment law firm today to schedule your free consultation. If you believe you’ve been wrongfully dismissed due to breast cancer in Southern California, it’s important to seek legal advice promptly. An experienced employment attorney from Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. can guide you through the process of protecting your rights and pursuing justice.
Contact Us When You Need an Employment Law Attorney for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura
Call us today at (818) 509-9975 or contact us online to schedule a complimentary case evaluation. We have extensive experience in all aspects of employment law, including wrongful dismissal for breast cancer cases.
Areas Served
The litigation and trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. provide services throughout Southern California including but not limited to Adelanto, Agoura Hills, Alhambra, Aliso Viejo, Altadena, Anaheim, Apple Valley, Arcadia, Arleta, Atwater Village, Azuza, Bakersfield, Baldwin Park, Banning, Beaumont, Bell, Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Blythe, Boyle Heights, Brea, Brentwood, Buena Park, Burbank, Calabasas, Calimesa, Camarillo, Canoga Park, Canyon Lake, Carson, Cathedral City, Cerritos, Chatsworth, Chino Hills, Chino, Claremont, Coachella, Colton, Compton, Costa Mesa, Corona, Covina, Culver City, Cypress, Dana Point, Desert Hot Springs, Diamond Bar, Downey, Duarte, Eagle Rock, East Hollywood, East Los Angeles, Eastvale, Echo Park, El Monte, El Segundo, El Sereno, Encino, Fontana, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Gardena, Garden Grove, Glassell Park, Glendale, Glendora, Granada Hills, Hacienda Heights, Hawthorne, Hemet, Hesperia, Highland Park, Highland, Hollywood, Hollywood Hills, Huntington Beach, Huntington Park, Indian Wells, Indio, Inglewood, Irvine, Jurupa Valley, La Canada Flintridge, La-Crescenta Montrose, La Habra, La Mirada, La Palma, La Puente, La Quinta, La Verne, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lakewood, Lake Balboa, Lake Elsinore, Lake Forest, Lancaster, Lawndale, Lincoln Heights, Loma Linda, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Los Angeles, Los Feliz, Lynwood, Manhattan Beach, Mar Vista, Maywood, Menifee, Mission Hills, Mission Viejo, Monrovia, Montclair, Montebello, Monterey Park, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Newbury Park, Newhall, Newport Beach, Norco, North Hills, North Hollywood, Northridge, Norwalk, Ontario, Orange, Oxnard, Pacific Palisades, Pacoima, Palos Verdes, Palmdale, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Panorama City, Paramount, Pasadena, Perris, Pico Rivera, Placentia, Pomona, Porter Ranch, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Rancho Santa Margarita, Redondo Beach, Reseda, Rialto, Riverside, Rosemead, Rowland Heights, San Bernardino, San Clemente, San Dimas, San Gabriel, San Fernando, San Jacinto, San Juan Capistrano, San Pedro, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Sawtelle, Seal Beach, Shadow Hills, Sherman Oaks, Silver Lake, Simi Valley, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, South Whittier, Stanton, Studio City, Sun Valley, Sunland, Sylmar, Tarzana, Temecula, Temple City, Thousand Oaks, Toluca Lake, Torrance, Tujunga, Tustin, Twentynine Palms, Upland, Valencia, Valley Glen, Valley Village, Van Nuys, Ventura, Victorville, Walnut, West Covina, West Hills, West Hollywood, West Puente Valley, Westchester, Westminster, Westwood, Whittier, Wildomar, Winnetka, Woodland Hills, Yorba Linda
Featured Case Regarding Wrongful Termination Due To Breast Cancer
Adams v. Rice, 531 F.3d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
Kathy Adams, a candidate for the United States Foreign Service, passed the required entrance examinations and received a medical clearance, only to learn thereafter that she had been diagnosed with stage-one breast cancer. Upon hearing the news, the State Department, expressing concern that many of its overseas posts lack the follow-up care it believed Adams required, revoked her medical clearance, disqualifying her from the Foreign Service. Adams sued under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits federal agencies from discriminating in employment against disabled individuals—including those with a “record of” a disability, 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B)(ii). In her complaint, she alleged that her surgical treatment rendered her cancer-free and able to work anywhere in the world without requiring specialized follow-up care. Without allowing discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the State Department, concluding among other things that Adams had no record of a disability as defined in the statute.
The Court of Appeals reversed. In relevant part the opinion states: “Seeking to “make clearer that the [Act’s] coverage … extends to persons who have recovered—in whole or in part—from a handicapping condition, such as a mental or neurological illness, a heart attack, or cancer,” S. Rep. No. 93–1297, at 38–39 (1974), Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act in 1974 to cover not only those individuals with impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, but also those having “a record of such an impairment,” Pub.L. No. 93–516, § 111, 88 Stat. 1617, 1619 (now codified at 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B)(ii)) (emphasis added). The “record of” definition was tailor-made for **217 *946 plaintiffs who, like Adams, claim they once suffered from a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited a major life activity, recovered from the impairment, but nonetheless faced employment discrimination because of it. See 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(k) (explaining that the “record of” definition “protects former cancer patients from discrimination based on their prior medical history”). Our dissenting colleague seems to adopt a narrow reading of the term “record,” suggesting that it refers only to tangible documentation of the plaintiff’s impairment. See Dissenting Op. 957–58. But Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations interpreting the Rehabilitation Act—which the Supreme Court has called a “particular[ly] significan[t]” source of guidance, Toyota, 534 U.S. at 195, 122 S.Ct. 681; Bragdon, 524 U.S. at 632, 118 S.Ct. 2196—define the phrase “has a record of such an impairment” more broadly, namely “has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(iii) (emphasis added). Thus, although “record of” disability claims will often involve tangible documents of some kind, such as medical reports or employment forms detailing a previous medical condition, plaintiffs may satisfy the “record of” definition simply by showing that they “ha[ve] a history of” a qualifying impairment. Id. And just as a plaintiff may not qualify as disabled or regarded as disabled based on an illness alone—even a serious illness like cancer—evidence of a prior illness, without more, is insufficient to show a record of disability. Because the Act protects individuals having a “record of such an impairment,” Adams must show that her alleged impairment “substantially limit[ed] one or more … major life activities.” 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B) (emphasis added); see Gallagher, 181 F.3d at 655 (“[I]t is not enough for [a] … plaintiff to simply show that he has a record of a cancer diagnosis; in order to establish the existence of a ‘disability’ … there must be a record of an impairment that substantially limits one or more of the … plaintiff’s major life activities.”).
7 Our inquiry under the “record of” definition therefore follows a three-step process. First, we ask if Adams has a history of a mental or physical impairment. If so, we ask whether the impairment limited an activity qualifying as a major life activity under the Act. Finally, if both the impairment and activity pass muster under the statute, we ask whether the alleged limitation was substantial. We consider each of these issues in turn. Here it is undisputed both that Adams has a history of breast cancer and that breast cancer qualifies as a “physical impairment” under the Act. Indeed, commentary accompanying the HHS regulations expressly names “cancer” as part of a “representative list of disorders and conditions constituting physical impairments.” Bragdon, 524 U.S. at 633, 118 S.Ct. 2196 (quoting 42 Fed.Reg. 22,676, 22,685 (1977)); see also 45 C.F.R § 84.3(j)(2)(i) (defining “impairment” as “any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine”). And because the government nowhere argues that breast cancer fails to qualify as an “impairment” under the Act, we will not belabor the point. 8 Having found that Adams has a history of an impairment, we next determine whether that impairment has limited any of her major life activities. Adams **218 *947 argues that it has in two ways. First, she contends that after her various surgeries—which required brief hospital stays—she “was unable to care for herself and unable to work.” Appellant’s Opening Br. 39. Under Toyota, however, “the impairment’s impact must … be permanent or long term.” 534 U.S. at 198, 122 S.Ct. 681; see also Haynes v. Williams, 392 F.3d 478, 483 & n. 4 (D.C.Cir.2004). Here, the evidence shows that Adams’s difficulty caring for herself, working, performing household chores, and driving lasted for only several weeks following her surgeries. Assuming any or all of these activities qualify as major life activities under the Act, we agree with the district court that because Adams’s “recovery times … consisted only of several weeks,” they were “hardly enough to qualify as … permanent or long-term.” Adams, 484 F.Supp.2d at 22; see also Sutton v. Lader, 185 F.3d 1203, 1209 (11th Cir.1999) (“A temporary inability to work while recuperating from surgery is not … a permanent or long-term impairment and does not constitute evidence of a disability covered by the Act.”). Adams’s second argument is that her cancer substantially limited her in the major life activity of engaging in sexual relations. Adams alleges that although she remains cancer-free, has an “excellent prognosis,” no longer requires ongoing cancer treatment, and “has no particular limits on her work activities,” she remains “limited in the major life activity of sexual contact and romantic intimacy.” Am. Compl. ¶ 12. According to Adams, her cancer treatment left a “residual effect … that may never resolve”—one that is “psychological in nature.” Adams Decl. ¶ 48. She explains: Like many breast cancer survivors, whether by virtue of my discomfort with the way my body looks, loss of sensation after my surgeries, my deep-seated fear that prospective suitors will reject me because of my history of cancer, loss of a breast, and current physical appearance, or the side effects of medication that causes loss of libido, I now find that the prospect of dating and developing an intimate relationship is just too painful and frightening. While I have overcome the physical disease, my ability to enter into romantic relationships has been crippled indefinitely and perhaps permanently.