Veteran Receives $1M Verdict for Wrongful Termination Against the City of Santa Ana
NS
Nishica Srivastava
Writer
3 min read
Candelario Jalomo v. City of Santa Ana
Case Background
On December 13, 2019, veteran Candelario Jalomo filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the City of Santa Ana alleging harassment, and retaliation because of his veteran status and violations of FEHA and USSERA. The case was filed in the Orange County Superior Court and Hon. Richard Lee presided over the case. [Case number: 2019-01118103]
Cause
Plaintiff Candelario Jalomo, a discharged combat veteran from the U.S. war in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) and a member of the California National Guard, started working as a Fleet Technician II for the Defendant City of Santa Ana on April 02, 2018. He proved to be a valuable and dedicated employee, consistently receiving high marks in his performance reviews. However, during his time there, his co-workers and supervisors harassed him because of his military and veteran status. They expressed frustration over his need to take job-protected military leaves.
After taking military leave in November 2018 to assist with the Camp fires in Paradise, California, his supervisor contacted the California National Guard, warning them that if the Plaintiff's leave extended beyond two weeks, his probationary period could also extend. Additionally, the Plaintiff would need to cover his medical benefits.
In January 2019, the Plaintiff took two additional days off for military drills. However, in February 2019, the City of Santa Ana dismissed him, citing unsatisfactory performance. During his probationary period, Mr. Jalomo had received two performance reviews: one marked "Acceptable" and another labeled "Exceeds."
On February 7, 2019, less than a month after returning from leave for military duty, Jalomo faced abrupt termination.
Damages
As a direct result of the Defendants' violation of his rights under FEHA, the Plaintiff suffered general damages.
Additionally, the Plaintiff sustained financial losses, which included lost earnings, benefits, and job opportunities. Therefore, he claimed to be entitled to special damages.
Furthermore, due to the Defendants' violation of Government Code Sec. 12940 et seq., the Plaintiff had to hire legal counsel to uphold the terms of his employment. The Plaintiff requested an award for attorneys' fees as provided under Government Code Sec. 12965.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Candelario Jalomo
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jeffrey A. Rager | James Y. Yoon | Ramit Mizrahi
Defendant(s): City of Santa Ana
Counsel for Defendant(s): Irma Moisa Rodriguez | Abraham Escareno | Angelo Mishriki
Claims
The Plaintiff’s membership in the California Army National Guard and his performance of military service were motivating factors for the Defendants' actions. His exercise of rights under the USERRA, including taking leaves for military duty, also influenced the Defendants' decisions. Consequently, they took adverse actions against him, including termination.
Additionally, the Plaintiff’s military and veteran status, along with his disability, were significant reasons for the Defendants' actions. He alleged violations of both FEHA and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).
Defense
The Defendant denied the allegations of violating FEHA and USERRA. The defense argued that the Plaintiff was terminated due to workplace behavior issues and unsatisfactory performance.
Jury Verdict
On February 21, 2024, a twelve-person Orange County jury returned a verdict in favor of Candelario Jalomo. The jury awarded him $1 million for non-economic past losses after finding that he was discharged because of his veteran status.
Post-trial Motion
The Court granted a new trial, reducing the amount to $450,000 through remittitur.
A North Carolina labor staffing company supplied over a million dollars' worth of workers to a major Arkansas solar construction project, never got paid, won big at trial — and then watched a judge erase the largest awards. HardHat Workforce Solutions, LLC secured jury findings in its favor on every claim it brought, including a $4.4 million punitive damage verdict against Jingoli Power, LLC. But the Court vacated the conversion verdicts entirely, leaving HardHat with symbolic wins and no money after years of litigation over $1,101,174.54 in unpaid labor invoices.
A federal jury in the Southern District of New York found that global law firm DLA Piper LLP was not liable for pregnancy discrimination or Family and Medical Leave Act violations. The Plaintiff, a seventh-year associate in the firm's Intellectual Property and Technology practice group, alleged that the firm suddenly terminated her employment in October 2022 because she requested maternity leave while six months pregnant. DLA Piper maintained that the termination resulted entirely from serious, repeated professional errors that threatened client relationships, rather than her pregnancy. After evaluating the evidence, the jury rejected the Plaintiff's claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and the FMLA, returning a complete defense verdict that awarded no damages to the Plaintiff.
Trevor Burke, an African-American gas troubleshooter mechanic, filed a lawsuit against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., alleging race and disability discrimination under federal, state, and local laws. After a multi-vehicle workplace accident in September 2020 left him with severe heart and knee injuries, Mr. Burke underwent emergency open-heart surgery and was placed on an extended medical leave. Under the governing collective bargaining agreement, protected disability leave was capped at one year, making September 9, 2021, his final deadline to return to work. Although cleared by his personal physician with a 25-pound lifting restriction, and initially cleared by a Con Edison doctor with a 20-pound restriction, Mr. Burke received conflicting instructions from operations management on the final day of his leave. Later that same afternoon, his union representative informed him that Con Edison had terminated his employment. Mr. Burke alleged that the company bypassed the mandatory interactive accommodation process and refused to reassign him to open light-duty roles. He also raised a claim of disparate treatment, pointing to a white comparator with a severe cardiac condition whom Con Edison accommodated with light-duty tasks, a partner, and a driver. Con Edison denied all allegations, arguing that a 50-pound lifting capacity was an essential requirement for the mechanic position and that no alternative vacancies were available. Following a full trial, a federal jury returned a complete defense verdict, clearing Con Edison of all liability.