Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wagner v. Southern California Edison Co.

United States District Court, C.D. California

September 9, 2019

THOMAS H. WAGNER, Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY et al, Defendants.

          JUDGMENT

          OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This action came on for Jury Trial on April 23, 2019, in Department 5D of the Central District of California, located at 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California, the Honorable Otis D. Wright, II presiding.

         A jury of nine (9) persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned to the Court its verdict, as follows, to wit:

         VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY RIGHTS ACT (“CFRA") - RETALIATION

         1. Was Plaintiff eligible for family care leave?

_√_ Yes ___ No

         If your answer to Question No. 1 is "No, ” stop here, answer no further questions in this section, and move on to Question No. 7. If your answer to Question No. 1 is "Yes," then answer Question No. 2.

         2. Did Plaintiff exercise his right to take family care leave?

_√_ Yes ___ No

         If your answer to Question No. 2 is "No," stop here, answer no further questions in this section, and move on to Question No-1. If your answer to Question No- 2 is "Yes," then answer Question No. 3.

         3. Did Defendant take adverse employment action against Plaintiff?

___ Yes _√_ No

         If your answer to Question No. 3 is "No," stop here, answer no further questions in this section, and move on to Question No. 7. If your answer to Question No. 3 is "Yes," then answer Question No. 4.

         4. Was Plaintiffs exercise of his right to take family care leave a substantial motivating reason for taking adverse employment action against Plaintiff?

___ Yes ___ No

         If your answer to Question No. 4 is "No, 11 stop here, answer no further questions in this section, and move on to Question No. 7. If your answer to Question No. 4 is "Yes," then answer Question No. 5.

         5. Was Plaintiff harmed?

___ Yes ___ No

         If your answer to Question No. 5 is "No," stop here, answer no further questions in this section, and move on to Question No. 7. If your answer to Question No, 5 is "Yes," then answer Question No. 6.

         6. Was Defendant's conduct a substantial factor in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.