This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
FEHA
Termination, Discrimination, Retaliation

Jane Doe v. Durham School Services, et al.

Published: Nov. 23, 2013 | Result Date: Jul. 29, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 5:13-cv-00738-CAS-OP Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mfon A. Ikon


Defendant

Todd B. Scherwin
(Fisher & Phillips LLP)

Kristen J. Nesbit
(Fisher & Phillips LLP)


Facts

Jane Doe worked as a bus attendant for Durham School Services and the San Bernardino Unified School District. In 2010, Durham began operating bus services for the District, and Doe continued to work as an attendant.

On Aug. 25, 2011, Doe was on her usual bus route, when she noticed a student chasing after the bus. She waited briefly for the student to catch up, but instead the student ran into the back of the bus. Both Doe and the bus driver were told to report to their supervisor after completing their route. The supervisor, Dora Panham, showed Doe a video that showed her laughing about the student's mishap, then fired her.

Doe then sued Durham and the District.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Doe claimed that she was terminated without good cause and without regard to her satisfactory job performance. During her time working as an attendant, she had never cited or disciplined. She claimed that she laughed a little nervously upon noticing the student chasing after the bus, but denied that she showed a lack of compassion or disregard for the student.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the termination was justified, and that Doe was not retaliated against.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss.


#111800

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390