Reference no: EM133161702

The assignment is a fact pattern that requires you to recognize employment discrimination claims we have discussed in class, apply the facts to them, and reach a conclusion. Please use IRAC. 

Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts in the question, to tell the difference between direct and indirect evidence, and to discern the points of law and facts upon which the case turns. 

Your answer should showcase your ability to apply the law to the given facts and to reason in a logical manner from the premises you adopt to a sound conclusion. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not merely show that you remember legal principles. Instead, try to demonstrate your proficiency in using and applying them to reach your  own conclusion. Do not assume facts not presented in the fact pattern, and do not discuss legal principles we have not discussed in class.

If your answer contains only a statement of your conclusions, you will receive little or no credit. I am looking for recognition of all potential employment claims, an application of the facts to the law, and a conclusion as to whether she could prevail on the claim.

Assingment:

Tu Ly was employed by Cura Pharmacy as a pharmacy technician for approximately four years, from July 2015 to October 4, 2019. At all relevant times, Cura Pharmacy employed approximately 25 employees. 

Tu worked 5 days per week, and occasionally on Saturdays. Her duties included, but were not limited to, typing up prescriptions, communicating with physicians' offices, occasionally filling prescriptions, making and answering phone calls, and conducting inventory for the pharmacy. When she left Cura Pharmacy in 2019, her hourly rate was $18.00 per hour.

During her entire employment, Tu worked a significant amount of double time each day for which she was compensated at only 1.5 times her regular rate of pay instead of the required double rate. Time records and corresponding paycheck stubs confirm this. 

During her entire employment, Cura Pharmacy had a policy of actually discouraging employees, including Tu, from taking an uninterrupted meal period. For instance, Cura expressed its "preference" to have Tu on-site for all her lunch breaks. Tu had to actually stay inside the building during her meal periods, and the owner of the pharmacy would become "antsy" if she didn't know where Tu was during her lunch break. In fact, the time records show that Tu never was able to take a lunch break or a rest break, as required by law and would often feel tired, light headed, and dizzy when she had to work extremely long shifts.

Tu was also never given the opportunity to take a second meal break if she worked over 10 hours in a day, despite the law requiring it.

Tu began seeing a medical doctor while she was employed at Cura Pharmacy for blurry vision, and the doctor said Tu was suffering from exhaustion due to working excessive hours (e.g. often times 16-20 hours a day). Tu's doctor gave her a medical note and recommended that Tu work no more than 8 hours a day and take at least 15 minutes of rest for every 3 hours of work.  When Tu showed the note to her boss, her boss told her that Tu was using this as an excuse to take a nap during working hours. 

Tu questioned Cura Pharmacy's policies and potential violations of CA labor laws, however, the owner would often yell and tell Tu she should not complain because she gets nice gifts as bonuses, like iPads or expensive purses.  Tu needed this job to help out her parents, who were in financial hardship, so she endured the violations.

What was most egregious, however, was the verbal abuse and harassment Tu suffered by the owner, Ms. Luu. Specifically:

• Ms. Luu would question Tu about where she was nearly ever second of the day, even during her days off, asking her who she was hanging out with, if she was dating anybody, or if she was hanging out at bars, "looking for action";
• Ms. Luu would regularly scream at Tu during working hours, screaming that she "f---ed" things up and that Tu needs to really "exercise" her "brain cells";
• Ms. Luu would regularly accuse Tu of "sleeping around" and indicated that that was the reason why Tu needed to take "naps";
• When Tu wanted a day off, Ms. Luu accused Tu of being promiscuous, sleeping around during the weeknights, being more interested in boys than in her job;
• When Tu indicated that she was dizzy because she was being forced to work excessive hours without taking breaks, Ms. Luu accused her of probably being pregnant, which was the reason why she was not feeling well.

Tu continued seeing the doctor during her employment, and eventually treated with a therapist who diagnosed her with having severe anxiety and distress caused by her employment. The therapist recommended Tu take a leave of absence for 3 weeks, and wrote a note for her. When Tu presented the note to her employer, it was rejected for just wanting to go on a vacation with Tu's boyfriend.

Ms. Luu's behavior continued during the entire time Tu was employed by Cura Pharmacy. After working there for 4 years, Tu realized she could no longer endure the manipulation and abuse, and quit on October 4, 2019.

After quitting, Tu finds the courage to speak with a lawyer who advises her of the potential employment claims Tu has.  The lawyer obtains a Right to Sue Notice on behalf of Tu shortly after they meet.

• Does the Fair Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA") apply here? Explain in detail, applying the facts identified above to each step of the analysis you lay out.
• Assuming the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, identify any and all potential employment claims Tu has against her employer under FEHA and explain why. Once again, be sure to identify each potential claim, listing the elements, and applying the facts to the law.
• Can Ms. Luu be held personally liable for any of the employment claims you identified in question no. 2, as opposed to only naming the employer company? Which claim can Ms. Luu potentially be held personally liable for? Why or why not?