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
ADA
Failure to Accommodate

Amada Cordero v. Catwalk to Sidewalk Inc.

Published: Jan. 3, 2020 | Result Date: Sep. 26, 2019 | Filing Date: Jan. 5, 2017 |

Case number: VC066042 Verdict –  $210,000

Judge

Brian F. Gasdia

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Christopher E. Gavriliuc
(Rodriguez Apodaca Law Firm LLP)

Richard A. Apodaca
(Rodriguez Apodaca Law Firm LLP)


Defendant

Samuel C. Jeon
(LPL Lawyers)

Jay C.W. Hong
(LPL Lawyers)


Facts

Plaintiff Amada Cordero filed suit against defendant Catwalk to Sidewalk Inc. in relation to her past employment with defendant.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Cordero contended that the owner of the defendant company refused to send her to a doctor multiple times even though the owner was aware that Cordero suffered a repetitive-work injury while at work. Cordero alleged that the owner's actions constituted conduct that consciously disregarded her health and safety. Cordero claimed that she obtained a doctor's note that requested she be sent to a workers' compensation doctor and set forth medical restrictions on her job duties, but she was terminated from her employment the day after the owner received the note. As such, Cordero asserted claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination. Cordero also contended that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant disputed the allegations and contended that Cordero was not injured. Defendant also argued that Cordero was not terminated, but rather was provided an accommodation of leave.

Damages

Cordero sought recovery of damages for pain and suffering she experienced due to the termination of her employment.

Result

The jury concluded that the owner of the defendant company engaged in malicious, oppressive conduct and consciously disregarded the health and safety of Cordero by denying her right to see a doctor. The jury awarded Cordero $210,000 in damages, comprised of $160,000 for past pain and suffering and $50,000 in punitive damages.

Deliberation

5.5 hours

Length

8 days


#133810

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

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