Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co.

Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co.

Opinion

 [**217]  RUVOLO, P. J.—

INTRODUCTION

Following 14 weeks of medical leave, appellant Barbara J. Neisendorf's at-will employment with respondent Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.) was terminated. She filed suit, claiming, among other things, that the termination of her employment violated the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act of 1993 (CFRA) (Gov. Code, § 12945.2; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7297, subd. (b)) and the California Fair Employment  [**218]  and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 [***2]  et seq.). After most of Neisendorf's case was dismissed on summary adjudication, including her claims of gender and age discrimination, her remaining claims for disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA and retaliation for taking a medical leave under the CFRA, proceeded to jury trial. At the conclusion of four weeks of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of LS&Co. finding, by special verdict, that Neisendorf was not terminated in retaliation for having taken medical leave under the CFRA and that she was not a “disabled person” entitled to FEHA's protection.

While Neisendorf does not challenge the jury's verdict entered in favor of LS&Co., she appeals two rulings made by the trial court. She first claims the court erred in dismissing her cause of action for violation of the CFRA after the court found that the undisputed facts established that LS&Co. fulfilled all of its affirmative obligations to Neisendorf in conjunction with her CFRA medical leave. She next claims the court erred in ruling that she was not entitled to certain bonus payments from LS&Co. because Neisendorf's  [*513]  employment with LS&Co. was terminated before she became eligible for any of the bonus payouts. [***3]  We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.