Lawyers for Wrongful Termination Due to Cancer

Understanding Your Rights: Wrongful Termination Due to Cancer

Receiving a cancer diagnosis is one of the most challenging experiences anyone can face. Alongside the emotional struggles and physical struggles, the added stress of wrongful job termination due to cancer can make this time even more difficult. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. we are dedicated to protecting your rights and ensuring you receive the fair treatment you deserve during this critical period.

What Constitutes Wrongful Termination Due to Cancer?

Wrongful termination due to cancer occurs when an employer illegally dismisses an employee because of their cancer. Federal and state laws provide strong protections to prevent such unjust actions. Understanding these laws is crucial for anyone facing wrongful dismissal due to cancer. Key legislations include:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): This federal law prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including cancer. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, allowing 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 cancer. It mandates that employers must 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 cancer. It ensures that employees can take necessary time off for treatments without 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 cancer, ensuring job protection during this critical time.

Recognizing Wrongful Termination Due to Cancer

Identifying wrongful termination due to cancer involves understanding the various forms of discrimination and retaliation that can occur. Here are several scenarios where termination may be deemed wrongful:

Discrimination: If your employer, fires you, or treats you differently after learning about your cancer diagnosis or denies you reasonable accommodations.

Retaliation: If your employer terminates you shortly after you request medical leave, accommodations, or file a complaint about discrimination.

Violation of Leave Rights: If your employer refuses to grant you medical leave as required under FMLA or CFRA, or terminates you while you are on approved leave.

The Impact of Cancer on Employment

Cancer diagnosis and 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 unlawful termination due to 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 Due to Cancer

Employees diagnosed with 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.

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 cases involving wrongful job termination due to cancer. Our experienced attorneys are dedicated to providing the support and legal expertise you need to navigate this challenging time. 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 wrongful termination due to cancer.

Filing Claims: If we accept your case we will file all appropriate claims and obtain rights to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) as appropriate 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 unjust firing due to cancer.

Advocating for You: We represent you in negotiations, hearings, court proceedings, and trial to ensure you receive the justice and compensation you deserve.

Taking Action Against Wrongful Termination Due to Cancer

If you believe you have been a victim of wrongful discharge due to 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. Let us help you navigate this difficult time and ensure you receive the fair treatment and compensation you deserve. We are committed to standing by your side and fighting relentlessly to protect your rights and interests.  Contact us now at (818) 509-9975 to schedule your complimentary case evaluation.

Featured Case Regarding Wrongful Termination Due to Cancer

Fisher v. Superior Ct., (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 779

Defendant Alpha Therapeutic Corporation (Alpha) operates donor centers throughout the United States for the collection of plasma and other blood products. Louis Fisher was hired by Alpha in the summer of 1978 to become director of its San Francisco donor center. Less than a year after beginning his services for Alpha, Fisher was diagnosed as having lymphosarcoma, a form of cancer affecting his lymphatic system. He was required to cease work to undergo medical treatment. Fisher was unable to return to Alpha within one year of the date he began a medical leave of absence. In January 1981, his doctor released him to return to work with certain restrictions. Alpha argued that because of Fisher’s restrictions, it was not able to find a position for him. On February 23, 1981, Fisher was terminated retroactively, purportedly on the basis of a written policy of Alpha’s limiting medical leaves of absence to one year.  On March 11, 1981, Fisher filed a complaint against Alpha with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) which is now known as the California Civil Rights Department.  In the complaint Fisher alleged that in being terminated he had been discriminated against on the basis of his “medical condition, in violation of Government Code section 12940.” He did not allege in the complaint that he was discriminated against because of a “physical handicap.” The DFEH investigated the complaint and determined that Alpha had not discriminated against Fisher. It concluded “(1) Complainant was not cured of cancer and required continuing treatment and care; (2) Complainant’s limitations … of avoiding climactic extremes, avoiding fatigue and infection were very difficult for [Alpha’s] job of Director of a Facility where germs were prevalent, temperatures were extreme, and the hours were long and stressful; (3) Respondent attempted to accommodate complainant despite a policy that allowed for termination for in excess of one year’s medical leave of absence.”

Thereafter Fisher brought this action for wrongful discharge, alleging three theories: (1) that he was fired in violation of section 12940, which prohibits discrimination against an employee on the basis of a medical condition, which is defined in section 12926 as a health impairment related to cancer; (2) that he was fired in violation of implied in fact terms of his employment contract; and (3) that he was fired in violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in his employment contract because Alpha had represented to him that he could take as much time off as he needed for treatment of cancer, that it would find a position for him when and if he recovered, that he did recover and attempted to return to work but was refused reinstatement and fired retroactively.

In pertinent part, the Court’s opinion stated as follows: “Section 12940, subdivision (a), provides that it is an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, for an employer to discriminate against a person on the basis of, inter alia, ‘physical handicap‘ or ‘medical condition.‘ Section 12926, subdivision (h), provides: ‘ ‘Physical handicap’ includes impairment of sight, hearing, or speech, or impairment of physical ability because of amputation or loss of function or coordination, or any other health impairment which requires special education or related services.‘ Section 12926, subdivision (f), provides: ‘ ‘Medical condition’ means any health impairment related to or associated with a diagnosis of cancer, for which a person has been rehabilitated or cured, based on competent medical evidence.‘ In 1973, the Legislature enacted the predecessor to section 12940, i. e., Labor Code section 1420. As originally enacted, the section prohibited discrimination on account of ‘physical handicap‘ but not ‘medical condition.‘ In 1975, the provision prohibiting cancer-related discrimination was added by Assembly Bill 1194, authored by Assemblyman Siegler. In a statement issued while the bill was in committee hearings, the author explained that his proposal had ‘been proven necessary because of the experiences of a number of cured cancer sufferers, who have appealed to the Fair Employment Practices Commission [the predecessor to the Fair Employment and Housing Commission], and have been told that the present regulation outlawing employment discrimination on the basis of ‘physical handicap’ does not cover discrimination based on a history of cancer.‘ Alpha argues that cancer-related discrimination does not fall within the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of physical handicap, as demonstrated by the fact that the Legislature felt the need to enact Assembly Bill 1194 in 1975; that although regulations implementing the Fair Employment and Housing Act require that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee with a physical handicap (Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 2, §§ 7293.8, 7293.9), no such reasonable accommodation is required for an employee with a cancer-related medical condition; …The Fair Employment and Housing Commission (the Commission), which administers the Fair Employment and Housing Act (the Act) (section 12900 et seq.), has squarely rejected the contention that an employer has no duty of reasonable accommodation to an employee who has a cancer-related medical condition within the meaning of the Act: “[T]he defense embodied in Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a)(2) [that an employer is not prohibited “from refusing to hire or discharging an employee who, because of the employee’s medical condition, is unable to perform his or her duties, or cannot perform such duties in a manner which would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health or safety of others”] would hardly have meaning if the medical condition provision of the Act, which we have previously found generally overlaps with the one pertaining to physical handicap, did not require reasonable accommodation even though it is required in cases involving physical handicaps. (Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 2, § 7293.8, subds. (b) and [ (c.].) Second, an individual such as [the complainant], who is rehabilitated from cancer but not cured, must forever undergo regular check-ups and must also promptly seek medical attention at the onset of physical symptoms which may be signs of a recurrence of cancer; there is an obvious need for accommodation of the individual’s doctor appointments, some of which may constitute medical emergencies and may of necessity require absences during regular work hours.” (DFEH v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Company (Austin) (1984) FEHC Dec. No. 84–30, at p. 31.) The Commission’s interpretation of the act which it enforces is, of course, entitled to great weight. (See Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, 491, 156 Cal.Rptr. 14, 595 P.2d 592; Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 668–669, 150 Cal.Rptr. 250, 586 P.2d 564.) We agree with the logic of the Commission’s interpretation. Additionally it comports with the directive of section 12993, subdivision (a): ‘The provisions of this part shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purposes thereof….” (See American National Ins. Co. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 603, 610, 186 Cal.Rptr. 345, 651 P.2d 1151.) A ruling on discovery will be disturbed by an appellate court only when it constitutes an abuse of discretion. (Perkins v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 761, 765, 173 Cal.Rptr. 596.) The court below erred as a matter of law in upholding Alpha’s relevancy objection to the thirteen interrogatories regarding the employer’s duty of reasonable accommodation. Consequently, its ruling thereon constituted an abuse of discretion.

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 AdelantoAgoura HillsAlhambraAliso ViejoAltadenaAnaheimApple ValleyArcadiaArletaAtwater VillageAzuzaBakersfieldBaldwin ParkBanningBeaumontBellBell GardensBellflowerBeverly HillsBlytheBoyle HeightsBreaBrentwoodBuena ParkBurbankCalabasasCalimesaCamarilloCanoga ParkCanyon LakeCarsonCathedral CityCerritosChatsworthChino HillsChinoClaremontCoachellaColtonComptonCosta MesaCoronaCovinaCulver CityCypressDana PointDesert Hot SpringsDiamond BarDowneyDuarteEagle RockEast HollywoodEast Los AngelesEastvaleEcho ParkEl MonteEl SegundoEl SerenoEncinoFontanaFountain ValleyFullertonGardenaGarden GroveGlassell ParkGlendaleGlendoraGranada HillsHacienda HeightsHawthorneHemetHesperiaHighland ParkHighlandHollywoodHollywood HillsHuntington BeachHuntington ParkIndian WellsIndioInglewoodIrvineJurupa ValleyLa Canada FlintridgeLa-Crescenta MontroseLa HabraLa MiradaLa PalmaLa PuenteLa QuintaLa VerneLaguna BeachLaguna HillsLaguna NiguelLaguna WoodsLakewoodLake BalboaLake ElsinoreLake ForestLancasterLawndaleLincoln HeightsLoma LindaLong BeachLos AlamitosLos AngelesLos FelizLynwoodManhattan BeachMar VistaMaywoodMenifeeMission HillsMission ViejoMonroviaMontclairMontebelloMonterey ParkMoorparkMoreno ValleyMurrietaNewbury ParkNewhallNewport BeachNorcoNorth HillsNorth HollywoodNorthridgeNorwalkOntarioOrangeOxnardPacific PalisadesPacoimaPalos VerdesPalmdalePalm DesertPalm SpringsPanorama CityParamountPasadenaPerrisPico RiveraPlacentiaPomonaPorter RanchRancho CucamongaRancho MirageRancho Santa MargaritaRedondo BeachResedaRialtoRiversideRosemeadRowland HeightsSan BernardinoSan ClementeSan DimasSan GabrielSan FernandoSan JacintoSan Juan CapistranoSan PedroSanta AnaSanta ClaritaSanta MonicaSawtelleSeal BeachShadow HillsSherman OaksSilver LakeSimi ValleySouth El MonteSouth GateSouth PasadenaSouth WhittierStantonStudio CitySun ValleySunlandSylmarTarzanaTemeculaTemple CityThousand OaksToluca LakeTorranceTujungaTustinTwentynine PalmsUplandValenciaValley GlenValley VillageVan NuysVenturaVictorvilleWalnutWest CovinaWest HillsWest HollywoodWest Puente ValleyWestchesterWestminsterWestwoodWhittierWildomarWinnetkaWoodland HillsYorba Linda

REQUEST FREE CONFIDENTIAL EVALUATION

I agree to receive SMS messages from Akopyan Law FirmI agree to receive email(s) from Akopyan Law Firm