PETROPOULOS v. DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
Filed 9/21/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| JIM PETROPOULOS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE, Defendant and Respondent. | A110536 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. N 04-1459) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 30, 2006, be modified as follows:
On page 7, at the end of the carryover sentence at the top of the page ending “following the effective date of the Commissioner’s decision,” add as footnote 6 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:
6 The disciplinary order was stayed pending the outcome of judicial review.
There is no change in the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
NEISENDORF v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO. Employer has no obligation to make accommodations to permit employee who has taken leave under California Family Rights Act to return to work within the allowed leave period; where employee did not return within the 12-week period to which she was entitled, employer was entitled to terminate her at-will employment as a matter of law. Where employment was terminated for performance-related reasons, which plaintiff failed to show were pretextual or discriminatory, plaintiff failed to establish a triable issue on her claim that she was terminated in retaliation for exercising her rights under CFRA. Public policy protecting workers’ rights to receive all earned wages does not prohibit employer from implementing bonus plan in which bonuses are paid only to persons employed by company on payout date, thus permitting employer to avoid payment of bonuses to employees terminated for cause between end of fiscal year in which bonus was earned and the payout date. Judgment Affirmed.
