CHARLES GELFO v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
CHARLES GELFO v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION
06:13:2006
CHARLES GELFO,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
Defendant and Respondent. B178676
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC292457
APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Conrad Aragon, Dan Thomas Oki, Judges. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Law Offices of David H. Greenberg, David H. Greenberg and Roslynn E. Anderson for Appellant.
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Elena R. Baca and Katherine C. Huibonhoa for Respondent.
SUMMARY
Appellant Charles Gelfo sued his former employer, respondent Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, a division of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed), alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), (Gov. Code, § 12940, subds. (a), (m), (n)), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Gelfo was laid-off as part of a reduction in force while suffering from a workplace injury. Lockheed later offered Gelfo a different position, but rescinded its offer after determining medical restrictions imposed as a result of Gelfo's back injury rendered him unable to perform the essential functions of the new position, and no reasonable accommodation was possible.
The trial court found the common law cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy was time-barred, and granted Lockheed's motion for summary adjudication as to that cause of action. After the parties rested following a jury trial on the remaining issues, the court granted partially Lockheed's motion for directed verdict. It concluded: (1) Gelfo was not â€
06:13:2006
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
Defendant and Respondent. B178676
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC292457
APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Conrad Aragon, Dan Thomas Oki, Judges. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Law Offices of David H. Greenberg, David H. Greenberg and Roslynn E. Anderson for Appellant.
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Elena R. Baca and Katherine C. Huibonhoa for Respondent.
SUMMARY
Appellant Charles Gelfo sued his former employer, respondent Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, a division of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed), alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), (Gov. Code, § 12940, subds. (a), (m), (n)), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Gelfo was laid-off as part of a reduction in force while suffering from a workplace injury. Lockheed later offered Gelfo a different position, but rescinded its offer after determining medical restrictions imposed as a result of Gelfo's back injury rendered him unable to perform the essential functions of the new position, and no reasonable accommodation was possible.
The trial court found the common law cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy was time-barred, and granted Lockheed's motion for summary adjudication as to that cause of action. After the parties rested following a jury trial on the remaining issues, the court granted partially Lockheed's motion for directed verdict. It concluded: (1) Gelfo was not â€
| Description | Charles Gelfo sued his former employer, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, a division of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed), alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Plaintiff was laid-off as part of a reduction in force while suffering from a workplace injury. Lockheed later offered him a different position, but rescinded its offer after determining medical restrictions imposed as a result of his back injury rendered him unable to perform the essential functions of the new position, and no reasonable accommodation was possible. |
| Rating |
