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
Retaliation
Wrongful Termination

Debra Templeton v. Roex Inc., Jolie Bolduc, Rodney H. Burreson

Published: Oct. 25, 2008 | Result Date: Aug. 8, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 07CC07659 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Keyvan Samini


Defendant

Mark W. Huston

Steven A. Silverstein


Experts

Defendant

Stephen M. Zamucen
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Debra Templeton worked at defendant Roex Inc.'s Irvine branch for several years. The plaintiff's mother sustained a serious brain injury and was hospitalized. Although plaintiff's supervisor, defendant Jolie Bolduc, authorized her to take time off work as needed, plaintiff was notified in an email from defendant Bolduc that she may be ineligible for full benefits if she failed to work a full week. The human resources department (HR) informed plaintiff that she would not lose her benefits for her time off.

The plaintiff later submitted a request for family leave. HR required plaintiff provide a letter from a doctor. At some point, a verbal confrontation ensued between plaintiff and defendant Bolduc. Defendant Rodney Burreson, the owner of the company, sent plaintiff home. The plaintiff was later suspended. On Dec. 15, 2006, the plaintiff was fired from her sales position. She filed suit, claiming retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy and the California Family Rights Act. Defendants Bolduc and Burreson were eventually dismissed.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that she was wrongfully terminated and retaliated against for requesting family leave. She further claimed that defendant wrongfully denied her request for leave.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that plaintiff was suspended and terminated for insubordination following the confrontation with her supervisor.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $1.8 million. The defendant made a $10,000 offer.

Specials in Evidence

The plaintiff, who later earned less income at another sales job, sought $1.2 million for lost wages and emotional distress. The defendant argued her future lost wages calculations were inflated.

Result

Defense verdict. The jury found that the company did not wrongfully terminate or retaliate against plaintiff.

Deliberation

two days

Length

four weeks


#121221

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

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