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
Disability Discrimination
Gender and Sex Discrimination

Machele Webb v. DSM Engineering Plastics Inc., Matt Marnell, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

Published: May 15, 2020 | Result Date: Jan. 24, 2020 | Filing Date: Feb. 28, 2019 |

Case number: CGC-19-574181 Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Richard B. Ulmer Jr.

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael T. Miller
(Light & Miller LLP)

Christopher R. Light
(Light & Miller LLP)


Defendant

Kevin D. Harlow
(DLA Piper LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Machele Webb worked for defendant DSM Engineering Plastics, Inc. as a Senior Business Development Manager. In 2017, plaintiff injured her left eye from a car accident during a company business trip. Plaintiff's eye required surgery. After the surgery, plaintiff became partially blind. Plaintiff informed her manager, Matt Marnell of her condition and inquired into whether a workers' compensation claim was possible. After informing Marnell, plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff then sued defendant for disability, age and gender discrimination, retaliation and harassment.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that she was subjected to disability, age and gender discrimination, retaliation and harassment after she suffered an eye injury during defendant's business trip.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that plaintiff's termination was due to her poor work performance. Defendant contended that plaintiff was late to two dinners in Japan, submitted incomplete work, and did not meet target goals. Defendant also contended that plaintiff could not prove that defendant's reasons for her termination were pretextual.

Damages

Plaintiff claimed consequential damages, emotional distress damages and punitive damages.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.


#134662

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

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