加利福尼亚法院’s summary judgment was filed on Wednesday in regards to a wrongful termination case against a San Francisco law firm. Appellant Sandra 嚼’在2007年4月4日失去工作后被指控错误解雇的指控败诉–twice.
法院’最近的裁定 a summary judgment rendered previously. Due to the lack of evidence 那 clearly supports 嚼’s allegations 那 her termination was a retaliatory action, the case never moved forward to trial.
嚼’的前雇主在法庭上证明了他们有合法，正当的理由解雇 her employment at their firm. On March 27, 2007, 嚼 showed up late to work. Standard procedure at the firm was that employees enter their hours into a computer system. On 那 day, w忘了输入她的到达时间，直到进入系统 据称她已经 忘记了她什么时候到达 at work.
嚼 was going to try to find out when exactly she arrived and entered only “6 a” in the computer. She claims she simply forgot to go back and fill in the minutes; therefore, the system read 那 嚼 got to work about 20 minutes before she truly did 那 day.
The falsification of time records is a terminable offense at the law firm. So when 嚼 was fired for 那 reason in April 2007, the company was within their rights to do so.
嚼 challenged her termination in court because of a conversation she had with her supervisor right before she was fired. She had suggested 那 her manager 对...表现出偏爱 newer and younger employees in the office and 那 she was watched much more closely and reprimanded more than the favored workers.
To effectively combat the perceived legality of her termination, 嚼 needed to show 那 other employees got away with falsifying their timecards and 那 she was treated more harshly. 法院s then could have looked at the issues of discrimination and retaliation more seriously.
嚼 v. Williams Lea