Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation removed a state court action against it regarding employment discrimination to the Eastern District of California on Tuesday, citing diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff claimed that her supervisors would become angry or laugh at her when she asked for accommodations due to wrist and back pain or medications.
The plaintiff claimed in her Superior Court of California complaint on November 24, 2020, that while working at the Fresno, California, meatpacking and food processing plant, she faced discrimination and retaliation because of her disabilities. She claimed that she was wrongfully fired in August 2020.
Reportedly, the plaintiff was employed in 2006 as an “ear tag,” a supporting role to meat processing. She has had various work restrictions from doctors and Cargill’s nurses since 2016 requiring her to only perform light-duty work and, most recently, “refrain from frequent overhead reaching, climbing stairs, extending, and fast paced walking.” The plaintiff reportedly began to have back pain in 2016 and went to Cargill’s on-site nurse for aid.
Purportedly, the plaintiff’s supervisors were angry that she went to see a nurse and explained that her pain came from repetitive work. The complaint claimed that they “laughed at her, made fun of her, and did not provide any support.”
In 2019, after the plaintiff began taking a medication that required her to drink large quantities of water, she claimed that her supervisors denied her bathroom breaks causing additional pain. The plaintiff reported that she was also denied trips to the on-site nurse and after she did visit the nurse and receive recommendations, her supervisors did not limit her work as requested.
In July 2020, the plaintiff was told by the nurse that she should “lie to her doctor and say that her injuries were not work related” and would be subject to disciplinary action, days later she filed a written complaint to human resources explaining the incidents that had occurred for the last few years. The plaintiff then, through counsel, requested her personnel file and informed the company that she would no longer work if they did not comply with the restrictions given by her doctor and asked Cargill to discuss with the plaintiff how it would accommodate her restrictions. The company did not respond, but she later received notice that her employment was terminated.
Claims cited by the plaintiff include: disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, retaliation, wrongful termination, failure to allow inspection of personnel file, and violations of various labor codes.
The plaintiff, represented by Angelica J. Caro, asked the court to award compensatory damages for lost wages and benefits and emotional distress, punitive damages, and various other fees. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation is represented by Cozen O’Connor.
