Case result

MICHAEL GRANT V. LOS ANGELES MTA (METRO): (Wrongful Termination / Medical Leave Retaliation / Disability Discrimination)

OutcomeSettledFiledJuly 14, 2022Wrongful TerminationRetaliationDisability
Get a free, confidential review Read the coverage
01 · The matter

The case at a glance

Michael Grant drove a bus for Los Angeles Metro for 32 years. He had a history of injuries, he asked for accommodations, and Metro granted them. Weeks after he returned from a protected medical leave, an angry passenger spat on him and he protected himself. Metro called that gross misconduct and fired him. The complaint we filed alleges the misconduct story was a pretext.

  • 32 years driving for Metro, ended by one incident with a passenger.
  • Metro’s stated reason for the firing was gross misconduct.
  • Our complaint alleges the real reasons were his history of disability, his medical leave, and his request for an accommodation.
  • He was fired shortly after returning from protected medical leave, and shortly after his accommodations were granted.
  • Metro’s own rules do not treat defending yourself from a belligerent passenger as gross misconduct.
  • Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, case BC551062. The case settled for $800,000.

You can read the filing itself: the Fourth Amended Complaint, in full, with the PDF.

02 · The case

What people assume, and what California law says

What people assumeWhat California law says
The employer called it misconduct, so the firing was justified.An employer’s stated reason can sound solid and still not be the reason it acted. California law looks at what actually motivated the decision.
Taking medical leave is a performance problem.Protected leave is not misconduct. The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) gives eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave, and it covers employers with 5 or more employees.
Asking for an accommodation is asking for a favour.It is a protected request. Government Code § 12940(h) protects an employee who asks for an accommodation, whether or not the employer grants one.
If you broke a rule, the reason behind the firing does not matter.It can matter. If other employees did the same thing and kept their jobs, that difference is evidence about the employer’s real motive.
03 · In focus

What happened

Mr. Grant had a history of disabilities: injuries to his low back, neck and both wrists, from a car accident and from 32 years on the job. He gave Metro doctor’s notes and workers’ compensation reports. He asked for accommodations, and Metro granted them.

No more than a month after he returned to work from a medical leave, an angry passenger spat on him. He protected himself from further assault. Metro said that was gross misconduct, and fired him.

Our complaint alleges Metro fabricated the misconduct story. Under Metro’s own rules, defending yourself from a belligerent passenger is not gross misconduct, and Metro had not fired operators without a history of disability for similar conduct.

04 · The detail

Why did the timing matter?

§ 01

He was fired shortly after returning from a leave of absence that medical-leave law protects.

§ 02

He was fired shortly after Metro granted his accommodations for those disabilities.

§ 03

The incident with the passenger came no more than a month after he came back to work.

§ 04

Metro had granted the accommodations, so it knew about the disabilities before it fired him.

§ 05

The complaint alleges Metro has a history of punishing bus operators who file workers’ compensation claims, through uneven discipline and firings dressed up as something else.

05 · The rules

What did we claim in court?

Statutes on point

The law behind this

Filed under
What did we claim in court?
Gov. Code § 12940(m)
disability discrimination. Metro knew of a history of disabilities that limited major life activities, and that history was a motivating factor in the decision to fire him.
Gov. Code § 12945.2(l)
retaliation for taking medical leave. The section bars an employer from punishing an employee for using the right to family care and medical leave.
Gov. Code § 12940(h)
retaliation for requesting an accommodation. The section protects an employee who asks for an accommodation, whether or not the employer grants one.
General information, not legal advice. The claims that fit your facts may be different ones.

General information, not legal advice. The rules and deadlines that apply turn on your facts.

Confirm your deadline
06 · In focus

How long do you have to file?

Deadlines vary by claim and can run earlier than expected. As general ranges, FEHA claims are generally around three years, federal EEOC charges around 300 days, and public-policy claims generally within about two years. Do not calendar from a guide. Confirm your actual deadline with us right away.

07 · The detail

Does your firing look like this one?

§ 01

You were fired soon after a leave

A firing that lands weeks or months after protected leave is worth a hard look at the timing.

§ 02

You had asked for an accommodation

You asked for a change at work for a medical condition, and the mood turned after that.

§ 03

The discipline does not match

You lost your job over something other people did without losing theirs.

§ 04

The reason keeps changing

The explanation in the meeting, the letter and the unemployment claim do not line up.

§ 05

You had just filed a claim

You reported an injury, filed for workers’ compensation, or complained, and the paperwork against you started after that.

08 · The case

Legal notice

Attorney advertising. This article is educational only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship, which exists only under a signed engagement agreement. Every case is different, and outcomes depend on the specific facts. Deadlines can run early, so consult a lawyer promptly about your situation.

In the press

Coverage of this case.

Reporting from the outlets that followed the matter. Links open on the publisher’s site.

0132 Year Bus Driver sues Los Angeles Metro – Manager finds excuse to fire him because he was taking too many medical leaves.prlog.org

External coverage is provided by third parties and reflects their reporting, not the firm. Past results do not guarantee a future outcome. Attorney advertising.

Questions

What people ask about a case like this.

General information about California employment law, not legal advice. What applies to you turns on your own facts.

Not for taking leave the law protects. CFRA gives eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave, and employers with 5 or more employees are covered. Counting protected leave against you as an attendance problem may be unlawful. Whether your leave was protected depends on your facts.

You may. A stated reason and an unlawful motive can sit side by side. What often matters is how the employer treated other workers who did the same thing, and what was happening around the time of the decision. A free consultation is the way to find out where you stand in a wrongful termination case.

Government Code § 12940(h) protects an employee who requests an accommodation, whether or not the employer grants one. Punishing someone for making the request is itself unlawful, separate from refusing the accommodation.

There is no fixed window. Timing is one piece of evidence. It is rarely the whole case. A gap of months can still matter when other facts line up, such as uneven discipline, a supervisor’s comments, or a change in how you were treated after you came back.

It can be. California law protects employees with a condition that makes a major life activity difficult, and it requires employers to discuss reasonable accommodation. Whether a firing crosses into disability discrimination depends on what the employer knew and what it did.

It depends on the facts: your lost pay, the strength of the evidence, and the harm you suffered. Past results do not guarantee a future outcome. The first consultation is free, and we will give you a straight read.

More of the record

Other cases we’ve taken on.

More matters the firm has handled for employees. Past results do not guarantee a future outcome.

Joseph v. Treyball Studios / Will Smith
View case
Rodriguez v. Tyler Perry
View case
Dixon v. Tyler Perry / TPS
View case
Settled
Rhea Devlugt v. Mario Barrett et. al.
View case

Every case is unique; results depend on the specific facts. Attorney advertising.

See all case results
The first step costs nothing

Tell us what happened. We read it free.

Send it in a sentence or two. If there’s a case, we’ll tell you what it is and what to do next. If there isn’t, we’ll tell you that too, straight, and at no cost.

Confidential from the first call$0 unless we winA straight answer

Prefer to talk? Call (424) 255-8376. A real person answers.

Free case review

No win · No fee

A phone number or email, whichever you’d rather we use.

Confidential. Submitting this does not create an attorney-client relationship.