Facts

Plaintiff Gina M. Holmes began her employment as Executive Assistant to Paul Petrovich of Petrovich Development Company (PDC) in early June 2004. On July 9, 2004, plaintiff acknowledged the company policy regarding email by signing the Company Handbook. The Company Handbook stated, in part, "email is not private communication because others may be able to read or access the message". In July 2004, Holmes informed Petrovich that she was pregnant and her due date would be Dec. 7, 2004. Holmes stated that she would work until the due date. On several occasions during this time, Petrovich made comments about her belly, which Holmes found offensive or inappropriate.

On Aug. 6, 2004, Petrovich and Holmes exchanged emails beginning with Petrovich asking about Holmes' maternity leave and what to do about a replacement. Holmes replied that she would be starting her maternity leave on or around Nov. 15, 2004 and was not sure whether she would take more than the six weeks she had previously indicated. Petrovich responded with surprise as they had discussed that she would work until her due date and would be out for no more than six weeks. In his response email, Petrovich expressed feeling deceived and duped. Holmes was offended by his comments and worked from home for the rest of the day.

On Aug. 9, 2004, another email exchange occurred beginning with Holmes stating that she enjoyed her time working for Petrovich and perhaps they should have spoken in person in order to avoid miscommunication. Petrovich agreed and Holmes conveyed that she wanted to move forward. Holmes subsequently learned that Petrovich had forwarded her email to various PDC employees including those who had initially interviewed her for the position. Holmes' doctor urged her to discuss her feelings directly with Petrovich about the situation. Holmes did not mention her concerns when she came into work on Aug. 11, 2004 and emailed her notice of termination to Petrovich that night.

Result

Plaintiff's FEHA and wrongful termination claims were dismissed on summary judgment. A jury verdict for the defense was reached for the final two claims of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.