MICHAEL J. HOLMES, Plaintiffs, vs. BEHAVIOR FRONTIERS, LLC; Defendants.
Case No.: BC689599
Hearing Date: August 27, 2018
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
Defendant Behavior Frontiers, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions
Defendant Behavior Frontiers, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED. Holmes is ordered to attend deposition within 20 days of this order and to pay Defendant $3000 in sanctions.
Factual Background
This is a disability discrimination case. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Michael J. Holmes (“Holmes”) worked for Defendant Behavior Frontiers, LLC (“BF”). (Complaint at p. 4.) Holmes went off work because of a disability, but was not allowed to return with a reasonable accommodation and was terminated. (Complaint at pp. 4–6.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Holmes filed the Complaint on January 9, 2018 alleging two causes of action:
FEHA Discrimination (disability)
FEHA Discrimination (failure to accommodate)
This court found that the present case was related t
Type
Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
MICHAEL J. HOLMES, Plaintiffs, vs. BEHAVIOR FRONTIERS, LLC; Defendants.
Case No.: BC689599
Hearing Date: August 27, 2018
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
Defendant Behavior Frontiers, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions
Defendant Behavior Frontiers, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED. Holmes is ordered to attend deposition within 20 days of this order and to pay Defendant $3000 in sanctions.
Factual Background
This is a disability discrimination case. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Michael J. Holmes (“Holmes”) worked for Defendant Behavior Frontiers, LLC (“BF”). (Complaint at p. 4.) Holmes went off work because of a disability, but was not allowed to return with a reasonable accommodation and was terminated. (Complaint at pp. 4–6.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Holmes filed the Complaint on January 9, 2018 alleging two causes of action:
FEHA Discrimination (disability)
FEHA Discrimination (failure to accommodate)
This court found that the present case was related t