Farmer's claims adjuster claims age discrimination after termination; $749,000. Fresno County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Plaintiff was hired by Farmers on January 21, 2002, as an attorney-represented claims adjuster. At that time, she had over fifteen years of experience in the insurance industry. Plaintiff’s first assignment with Farmers was as a member of a four-person team hired to settle litigated matters on “legacy files,” which were older paper files.  Plaintiff’s team worked to close paper claim files first in Visalia, Martinez, and Pleasanton, working from home but reporting to the branch offices. 

  Plaintiff received a positive performance evaluation in that capacity, rated as either outstanding or satisfactory in each category evaluated.  As Farmers’ project to close out legacy files neared completion, legacy teams were dismantled, with selected adjusters retained and transferred to general claims handling offices, and others being laid off.  Based on her record of performance, plaintiff was retained and in August 2003, was transferred to the Fresno office.

  After her initial seven months in the Fresno office, plaintiff asked to be assigned a direct supervisor and to be given a performance  review.  She also asked for her own caseload rather than working on cases assigned to other adjusters. She was then given a much larger caseload than anyone else in the office, including problematic files from an employee who had been fired.

  Between March, 2004 and October, 2005 plaintiff requested  from her direct supervisor help and a reduction in caseload. Supervisor acknowledged in written documents that plaintiff was responsible for a larger than usual number of files, but never provided concrete help.

  In response to plaintiff’s complaints of harassment and unfair treatment on October 3, 2005, her immediate supervisor conducted “case reviews” on Warehime’s files, which culminated in a “Formal Warning”  (a progressive discipline document) on December 12, 2005.  This was followed by a 60-day “Formal Warning Extension” on January 24, 2006, and thirty-five days after the 60-day extension, a “Probation Memo” on February 28, 2006. 

  At the  beginning of March, 2006, plaintff took a leave of absence as recommended by her doctor, due to work-related stress. When she returned in June, 2006 with a request to work half time, she was terminated.

   

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That staff in the Fresno office made derogatory statements about older people, targeting plaintiff and another man that plaintiff had recommended for the job. That older man ended up quitting after much negative treatment.

  That she was treated differently than other claims adjusters becuase of her age, and that when she complained to her supervisor in October 2005, that Farmers retaliated against her through formal discipline that was escalated to termination in June 2006.

  Defendant company also failed to accomodate her request for two weeks part-time work and entrance into the interactive process before she was terminated.

  Plaintiff alleged the following four FEHA causes of action:

  (1)  Age Discrimination;

  (2)  Retaliation;

  (3)  Failure to Engage in a Timely Interactive Process to Determine Effective Reasonable Accommodations; and

  (4)  Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations.

   

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendant denied all allegations.