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
Constructive Discharge

Elizabeth Vaden v. Michael J. Astrue (Commissioner of the Social Security Administration)

Published: Apr. 18, 2009 | Result Date: Jan. 26, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 07CV02957(VBF) Settlement –  $4,000

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Erikson M. Davis

Leo J. Terrell
(Law Office of Leo Terrell)


Defendant

Leon W. Weidman

Thomas P. O'Brien
(Paul Hastings LLP)

Indira J. Cameron-Banks

Robyn-Mari Lyon Monteleone
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Facts

Plaintiff Elizabeth Vaden was terminated from her employment with the Social Security Administration (SSA) on Oct. 20, 2005 after 17 years of service. During her employment with the SSA, Vaden gave testimony to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) concerning the claim of co-worker Diane Huntsman that she had been discriminated against based on her disability and race by director Sharon Rapport.

In December 2003, Vaden was recuperating from knee surgery and, based on her doctor's recommendation, requested to telecommute from home. Plaintiff claimed Rapport denied the request citing a lack of authority, but Vaden discovered that Rapport was the sole authorization required. Vaden returned to work on restricted duty but her supervisor, Vester Levingston, allegedly ignored the restrictions and Vaden was required to carry heavy boxes.

In September 2004, Vaden was denied her choice of FlexiPlace days to work at home despite her seniority level and other junior employees were given their choice of days ahead of Vaden.

On Oct. 7, 2004, Rapport loudly berated Vaden in front of 30 fellow SSA employees during a staff meeting. On Oct. 14, 2004, Vaden claimed Levingston pressured Vaden to sign a letter of reprimand stating that it was Vaden who had loudly berated Rapport. After Vaden filed an EEOC complaint, she met with Rapport to ask for a reassignment; Rapport agreed to the request allegedly on the condition that Vaden withdraw her EEOC complaint. When Vaden refused to withdraw the complaint, she received a notice of impending termination on Aug. 12, 2005. Rapport had the sole authority to terminate Vaden.

Vaden filed suit against defendant Michael Astrue, SSA Commissioner.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Vaden contended that she was harassed and terminated based on her testimony in Huntsman's EEOC complaint against Rapport. Vaden argued that she suffered retaliation as her previous experience at SSA had been positive.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant denied any retaliation or harassment based on Vaden's protected right to testify on Huntsman's behalf.

Result

Vaden accepted a settlement in the amount of $4,000.

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 4, 2007.


#88593

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

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