Unjustly Terminated?

unjustly terminatedWhen Barnes & Noble fired chief executive officer Demos Parneros, he fought back with a lawsuit claiming he was unjustly terminated. That the bookstore made up reasons to get rid of him, and by firing him after just over a year of employment, they breached their contract with him and harmed his reputation. He went after the company in court, asking for over $4 million in severance pay and additional damages.

Unjustly Terminated? Barnes and Noble’s Side

Barnes and Noble, on the other hand, contends that Parneros was no unjustly terminated. They stand by their decision to fire the executive, and has filed a countersuit claiming they should be able to recoup the money already paid to him during his 14-month stint with the company due to his “disloyal conduct.” His lawsuit, they claim, is simply an attempt by Parneros to extort money from the country’s largest chain bookstore.

The termination, they say, was the result of serious allegations of sexual harassment. A female employee reported that Parneros engaged in unwanted comments and touching, telling her in one incident that she seemed the type of woman who would “put out” if she were “wined and dined.”

Parneros is also accused of bullying CFO Allen Lindstrom.

In addition to the sexual harassment and bullying claims, Parneros is impugned for trying to sabotage a major sales deal involving Barnes & Noble and an unknown entity.

Unjustly Terminated? The Denial

Parneros denies the claims, and contends that he never sexually harassed female employees; nor did he bully subordinates, or in any way behave in a way that could be interpreted as disloyal to the company. In terms of his treatment of Lindstrom, Parneros attests that the treatment was appropriate in light of Lindstrom’s subpar work performance.

The idea that Parneros attempted to interfere with any sales deals is totally false, according to him. The sales deal fell apart, and the company founder, Leonard Riggo, blamed Parneros unjustly. According to Parneros, he was unjustly terminated soon afterward, and his severance package was withheld.  Beyond that, Barnes & Noble put out a press statement that made Parneros seem to be leaving due to gross sexual misconduct, something he says the company knew was patently false. His lawsuit claims breach of contract and defamation.

What Now?

With both cases pending, the outcomes remain to be seen. Barnes & Noble is reconfiguring its management team, and both sides seem to be preparing for a fight to the end. [Read more…]

Wrongful Termination Complaint Thomsen v. Georgia-Pacific

Wrongful Termination ComplaintWrongful termination complaint Thomsen v. Georgia-Pacific Corrugated, LLC. How far must an employer go to accommodate a worker’s disability? Jan Thomsen worked at a corrugated container plant in Madeira, California for approximately 23 years. He sustained a shoulder injury on the job in 2012 and returned to work in 2013 after undergoing surgery. He informed his employer, Georgia-Pacific Corrugated, LLC, that he was now unable to perform the responsibilities of his previous position as a cut and die operator. He also provided verification from his doctor that his condition prevented him from performing certain responsibilities such as carrying anything that weighs more than 30 pounds.

Thomsen was then assigned a position as an assistant end gluer, which he believed would be a good match for his capabilities. However, after performing the job, Thomsen told his employer that the duties of the new position would need to be modified to accommodate his disability. He was told by an HR employee to return to his doctor, to determine whether additional restrictions were necessary.

Thomsen did not return to his doctor. He was fired shortly afterward, for refusing to work an overtime shift. Thomsen then filed a wrongful termination complaint against Georgia-Pacific. One of his claims was that his employer violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by failing to provide reasonable accommodation for his disability. At trial, Georgia-Pacific moved to dismiss this claim.

Many employers would look at these facts and conclude that Georgia-Pacific clearly had the law on its side. After all, when Thomsen was unable to perform his old job due to his injuries, Georgia-Pacific assigned him a new one – one that Thomsen agreed was within his capabilities. And when Thomsen asserted that he was unable to perform his new job, Georgia-Pacific’s response was to ask for documentation, rather than firing or suspending him.

But according to a federal court, it is not that simple. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected Georgia-Pacific’s motion to dismiss Thomsen’s claim that Georgia-Pacific failed to accommodate his disability. The court found that a reasonable jury could find that Georgia-Pacific was obligated to engage with Thomsen to assess whether modifications to the position were possible.

Wrongful Termination Complaint – An “Interactive Process”

In reaching its conclusion, the court pointed to two particular allegations of Thomsen’s wrongful termination complaint.

  • Thomsen’s wrongful termination complaint alleged that his new position required him, at times, to lift more than 30 pounds – which his doctor had already confirmed was too much for him to handle.
  • Thomsen’s wrongful termination complaint also alleged that a machine operator he worked with refused to accommodate his needs, and kept the machine running even when it was backed up.

Under FEHA, an employer must “engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any” after an employee requests reasonable accommodations due to a disability or known mental condition. The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that after Thomsen expressed concerns about the requirements of his new position, Georgia-Pacific was obligated to engage in a dialogue with him before deciding that he must return to his doctor. [Read more…]

Disclaimer

The information on this website should not be considered to be legal advice, nor construed to be the formation of any manner of attorney client relationship. Prior to taking any form of legal action, please consult with an attorney experienced in the appropriate area of law germane to your situation. Case results and testimonials presented on www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net or any of its related websites are germane to the facts present for each individual case and is not a promise of similar outcomes for any other cases. This website is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the State of California.