Facts

Plaintiff Michelle Ureta was fired when she was almost nine months pregnant. She did not receive any warnings or reprimands before firing. Defendant claimed plaintiff was fired as part of a company-wide restructuring. Plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff's manager had made biased comments about her pregnancy before the firing. Defendants initially told plaintiff she was being laid off in a "restructuring," yet she was the only one who was fired. Defendants subsequently blamed the firing on a "Confidential Survey" that was not done until after the plaintiff had already been fired.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that she was fired because of her pregnancy, and/or because of her intention to take maternity leave.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that it terminated plaintiff as part of a company-wide restructuring in which four other department heads were terminated. Defendant treated plaintiff like other management level employees whose positions were eliminated in that it did not transfer her to another position. Even if other positions were available, Plaintiff's performance problems precluded the company from retaining her.

Settlement Discussions

Defendants offered $99,000 (CCP 998 offer) two weeks before trial.

Injuries

Plaintiff alleged the termination caused her to fail to lactate and that her baby failed to thrive as a result.

Result

Plaintiff's verdict for $65,870. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages were dismissed on a motion for nonsuit.

Other Information

FILING DATE: June 7, 2007.

Deliberation

one day

Length

10 days