Lawyers for Wrongful Termination Due to Hypertension Serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Ventura Counties

At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we specialize in representing individuals who have faced wrongful termination due to hypertension. Serving clients across Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Ventura Counties, our team is committed to fighting for the rights of employees who have been unjustly treated by their employers. If you believe you were fired because of high blood pressure, you may have a legal claim against your employer.

Understanding Hypertension: Causes, Treatment, and Overview

Hypertension, commonly known as high blood pressure, is a medical condition that affects millions of people worldwide. It occurs when the force of blood against the walls of your arteries is consistently too high, which can lead to serious health complications if left untreated. Hypertension is often referred to as the “silent killer” because it typically has no symptoms but can cause significant damage to the heart, kidneys, and other organs over time.

The causes of hypertension are varied and can include factors such as genetics, poor diet, lack of physical activity, excessive alcohol consumption, smoking, and chronic stress. Additionally, certain medical conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and kidney disease can contribute to the development of high blood pressure.

Treatment for hypertension typically involves lifestyle changes, such as adopting a healthier diet, increasing physical activity, reducing alcohol intake, quitting smoking, and managing stress. In some cases, medication may be prescribed to help lower blood pressure levels. Regular monitoring and medical check-ups are essential to ensure that blood pressure remains within a healthy range.

For more detailed information on hypertension, its causes, and treatment options, you can visit the American Heart Association’s website.

The Impact of Hypertension on Work Performance

Hypertension can have a significant impact on an individual’s ability to perform their job duties, especially if the condition is not well-managed. High blood pressure can lead to fatigue, headaches, dizziness, and difficulty concentrating, all of which can affect job performance. In more severe cases, hypertension can increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, or other serious health events, which can result in prolonged absences from work or the inability to perform certain tasks.

Employers are legally required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with medical conditions such as hypertension. This may include adjustments to work schedules, modifications to job duties, or the provision of necessary medical leave. However, some employers may fail to meet these obligations, leading to unjust treatment of employees with hypertension.

If you have been subjected to wrongful job termination because of high blood pressure or were wrongfully dismissed because of hypertension, you have legal rights that deserve protection. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we understand the challenges faced by employees with hypertension and are dedicated to holding employers accountable for any unlawful actions.

Legal Protections Against Wrongful Termination Due to Hypertension

California law, particularly the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), provides strong protections for employees with disabilities, including those with medical conditions like hypertension. Under FEHA, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on a disability or perceived disability. This includes any action taken by an employer to terminate, demote, or otherwise adversely affect an employee’s employment because of their medical condition.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also provides federal protections against disability discrimination. Under the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, so long as these accommodations do not impose an undue hardship on the employer. If an employer fails to accommodate an employee with hypertension or retaliates against them for requesting accommodations, the employee may have a valid claim for wrongful discharge because of hypertension.

Employees who experience wrongful firing because of high blood pressure have the right to seek legal recourse. The attorneys at Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. are well-versed in both state and federal employment laws and can provide the guidance and representation needed to pursue justice.

Common Scenarios Leading to Unlawful Termination Because of Hypertension

There are several scenarios in which an employee with hypertension might face unjust firing because of their condition. Understanding these scenarios can help you identify whether you have been wrongfully terminated and whether you should seek legal assistance.

Denial of Reasonable Accommodations: If you requested reasonable accommodations for your hypertension and your employer refused to provide them, leading to a negative impact on your job performance, this could be grounds for a claim. For example, if you requested a modified work schedule to attend medical appointments and were denied, resulting in excessive absences, you may have a case for wrongful job termination because of high blood pressure.

Retaliation for Medical Leave: Employees with hypertension may need to take medical leave to manage their condition, undergo treatment, or recover from related health issues. If you took medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and were terminated upon your return, this could constitute wrongful dismissal because of hypertension.

Performance-Related Termination: Hypertension can cause symptoms that affect job performance, such as fatigue or difficulty concentrating. If your employer terminated you for performance issues that were directly related to your medical condition, without considering reasonable accommodations, this could be considered wrongful firing because of high blood pressure.

Hostile Work Environment: If your employer or coworkers created a hostile work environment due to your medical condition, and this hostility led to your resignation or termination, you may have a claim for constructive discharge or wrongful dismissal because of hypertension.

How Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. Can Help

If you believe you have been subjected to wrongful discharge because of hypertension, it is crucial to consult with experienced employment attorneys who can help you navigate the legal process. Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. has a proven track record of successfully representing clients in wrongful termination cases, including those involving medical conditions like hypertension.

Our team of dedicated attorneys will thoroughly investigate your case, gather necessary evidence, and advocate on your behalf to ensure that your rights are protected. We understand the emotional and financial toll that wrongful termination can take, and we are committed to helping you achieve a fair resolution.

Employment Law Firm with Offices in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Bakersfield, and Oxnard

If you have been wrongfully terminated because of high blood pressure, or if you suspect that your employer discriminated against you due to your medical condition, it is essential to take action as soon as possible. The legal team at Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is here to provide the guidance and representation you need to hold your employer accountable for their unlawful actions.

Contact us today to schedule a consultation and learn more about your rights. Our attorneys are ready to assist you in fighting for the justice and compensation you deserve.

For additional resources on hypertension and employment rights, consider visiting the American Heart Association and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

If you were fired because of high blood pressure, call us today at (818) 509-9975 or contact us online to schedule a complimentary case evaluation. Our employment lawyers are ready to fight for employees in cases involving wrongful dismissal due to hypertension.

Featured Case Involving Wrongful Termination Due to Hypertension

In the seminal case of Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Com., (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 603 the California Supreme Court held that high-blood pressure is “protected physical handicap” within meaning of the statute. In June 1975, American National Insurance Company (hereafter Company) employed Dale Rivard as a sales and debit agent, subject to approval of the home office. Between 1963 and 1968, Rivard had been employed by the Company for similar work. After six weeks, the Company terminated the employment because he did not meet the Company’s health requirements for that position. “The work of a sales and debit agent is to go door-to-door in a specified residential district selling insurance and collecting premiums. Agents are expected to meet certain sales quotas and to be current in the collection of premiums. The Company regards the work of a sales and debit agent as stressful, and as a matter of policy does not hire persons with elevated blood pressure for that work. When the Company terminated his 1975 employment, Rivard filed a complaint with the commission alleging that he had suffered discrimination because of a physical handicap in violation of Labor Code section 1420.

“Following an administrative hearing, the commission decided that the Company had discriminated unlawfully against Rivard and ordered his reinstatement with back pay. The Company then petitioned the superior court for review of the commission’s decision. The court found that the commission’s findings were supported by the evidence and concluded that ‘High blood pressure is a protected physical handicap under the California Fair Employment Practice Act, Labor Code section 1410, et seq. [FEHA].’ Accordingly, the superior court denied the Company’s petition. The company appealed. In affirming the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“What next we must decide is whether the Legislature intended that in certain cases high blood pressure may be a “physical handicap” under the FEHA. That statute proscribes unjustified discrimination based on “race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age ….” Section 12926, subdivision (h) of the act tells us that the phrase “ ‘[p]hysical handicap’ includes [1] impairment of sight, hearing or speech, or [2] impairment of physical ability because of amputation or loss of function or coordination ….” (Italics added.) Because in that clause the word the drafters chose was “includes” (rather than “means” or “refers to,” say) we infer that the Legislature did not endorse a restrictive definition. Instead it appears to have contemplated that the cognizant administrative officials and judges would consider all handicaps that are physical. Nonphysical handicaps—mental, economic, etc.—by implication are excluded.⁴ Also excluded are various ills or defects that in fact are not handicapping; for example, certain kinds of digestive, respiratory, or skin disorders.

The Company concedes that the list of handicaps in section 12926, subdivision (h) does not “purport to be exhaustive ….” Yet its efforts to distinguish between covered and noncovered handicaps disclose how useless in this case are the maxims ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis. For example, the Company says that “additional handicaps [i.e., those covered though not listed] must be similar in nature to those … set forth.” (Italics added.) To us, “similar in nature” means (1) that the illness or defect is physical, and (2) that it is handicapping.

Further, the Company urges, “the protected ‘physical handicaps’ are major physical impairments similar to those listed in the definition.” (Italics in original.) By no means, though, do the Legislature’s words imply that only major ills or defects are covered. Not all “impairment[s] of sight, hearing, or speech” are major; nor are all “impairment[s] of physical ability because of loss of function or coordination ….” To infer that nonmajor impairments are excluded would flout even the coverages that the statute expressly identifies.

Finally, says the Company, “a large number of physical impairments, such as epilepsy, cerebral palsy and arthritis, presumably are protected.” Those three ills are physical, and often in fact they are handicapping. In neither the statute’s words nor its legislative history, however, do we perceive an intent to include epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and arthritis while excluding ills such as high blood pressure. What then is a “physical handicap” for purposes of the statute? Webster’s tells us that a handicap is “a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult.” (Webster’s New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1961) p. 1027.) Obviously a condition of the body which has that disabling effect is a physical handicap.

Did the Legislature intend to cover only those health problems that are presently disabling? We think not. Indeed it made present inability to perform a particular job efficiently, safely, and without danger to health one of the few defenses to a charge of discrimination. (§ 12940, subd. *610 (a)(1).) The law clearly was designed to prevent employers from acting arbitrarily against physical conditions that, whether actually or potentially handicapping, may present no current job disability or job-related health risk. (See Sterling Transit Co. v. Fair Employment Practice Com. (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 791, 794, 796, 175 Cal.Rptr. 548.)

To limit “handicap” to present disabilities would defy logic. In effect that would proscribe discrimination based on current, manifest, physical disfunction while allowing exclusion on the basis of conditions—like high blood pressure—that may handicap in the future but have no presently disabling effect. We should not conclude that the Legislature intended any such anomalous result.

The Company argues next that hypertension is more appropriately deemed a “medical condition” than a handicap. It notes that the Legislature prohibited discrimination on grounds of “medical condition” but curiously restricted the reach of that term to cured or rehabilitated cancer. ***350 (See § 12926, subd. (f): “ ‘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.”)

We need not decide whether that bizarre definition implies that an unrehabilitated and uncured cancer patient is never physically handicapped. Even more bizarre, though, would be our presuming a legislative conclusion that high blood pressure is always a medical condition, never a physical handicap, and thus is unprotected by the statute. Common knowledge is to the contrary; high blood pressure is physical, and often it is handicapping. (See too § 12993, subd. (a): “The provisions of this part shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment **1156 of the purposes thereof ….” Cf. § 12920: “It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of … physical handicap….”)

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