Princess Obienu vs. County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services

Case Background

Princess Obienu filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Los Angeles County, (erroneously sued as “County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services”). The lawsuit alleged racial and disability discrimination and wrongful termination which led to lost wages and emotional distress.

The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, with Judges Jon R. Takasugi and Richard E. Rico presiding. [Case number: 19STCV33111]

Cause

Princess Obienu, an employee of Los Angeles County, began her role as a Health Education Assistant in December 2008.

Denial of Promotion

In June 2009, after completing her probationary period, Dr. Lakshmi Makam encouraged her to apply for a Health Educator position. However, the Department of Health Services (DHS) rejected her application, stating that she did not meet the minimum education requirements. Victoria Dela-Aguilar, an HR Exam Analyst, signed the denial letter. Plaintiff held multiple degrees, including a bachelor’s in Health Science and a master’s in Urban Public Health, along with extensive teaching experience.

Plaintiff appealed the decision in 2009, and Charles Drew University (CDU) supported her qualifications. Despite this, her appeal was denied. From 2006 onward, she repeatedly applied for similar positions but was consistently rejected for failing to meet the stated requirements.

In 2010, the Department of Public Health (DPH) denied her a promotion to Staff Development, despite her 88% interview score. In 2012, DHS rejected her for the same position, giving her a 76% rating. Dr. Makam, who had previously acknowledged her planning skills, rated her low in that area. Plaintiff had developed the Health Education and Cultural Linguistic Program at Hubert H. Humphrey Comprehensive Health Center.

Between 2012 and 2016, Plaintiff faced multiple denials for Health Educator and related positions, often due to outdated job requirements. She petitioned the county to revise the job specifications, but progress remained slow. In 2017, she was assigned poor working conditions and faced retaliation after filing complaints. In 2018, despite being placed on an eligibility list with a 100% rating, she remained disqualified for Health Educator roles. The pattern of denials and workplace mistreatment continued through 2018.

Medical Leave

Plaintiff’s chronic injuries worsened between June 4, 2014, and May 27, 2016, due to workplace harassment and stressful conditions at Hubert Humphrey Comprehensive Health Center (HHHCHC). Since 2009, she had periodically applied for leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

For her most recent CFRA request, Plaintiff relied on “intermittent unauthorized absences” after HHHCHC nursing managers, including Norma Haye, RN, Quita Hackett, RN, and Juana Gonzales, RN (Retired), told her intermittent leave was not allowed. Alejandra Maldenado agreed, citing Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) clarification. From 2016 to July 9, 2018, Plaintiff used FMLA leave, vacation, and sick time before being placed on administrative leave.

On March 15, 2017, Karen Grays, DHS FMLA Benefit Coordinator, denied Plaintiff’s leave request from June 1, 2016, to May 31, 2017, citing incomplete information. She copied Haye, Maldenado, and Hackett on the email. On April 9, 2018, Grays denied another FMLA request for the same reason, despite Plaintiff submitting the required documents. Plaintiff’s CFRA remained active from June 1, 2016, to May 2019.

Plaintiff attended three Interactive Process Assessment (IPA) meetings with the Risk Management – Return to Work (RTW) Unit, where HHHCHC nursing managers reiterated that flexible FMLA reporting was not allowed for her role. On multiple occasions, including October 12, 2016, Plaintiff was denied flexible FMLA accommodations.

From May 2016 until her administrative leave, Plaintiff endured a hostile work environment. Nursing managers invaded her workspace, pressured her to take a nursing competency test without documentation, and moved her between clinics and classrooms. Despite scoring 100% on the written portion, she allegedly failed the verbal component for not saying “Stop.” Harassment continued through 2017, with multiple IPA meetings reaffirming restrictions on flexible reporting.

Adverse Employment Action

From December 15, 2008, to the present, the Plaintiff worked for the County Department of Health Services. On May 10, 2016, without prior discussion, she received a transfer letter reassigning her to the nursing department. Though her job location and duties remained unchanged, her supervisor did not.

Two weeks later, she requested her performance evaluation, but Dr. Perry informed her that nurses—who did not supervise her—would conduct it. On June 27, 2016, Nursing Director Marion Thornton White yelled at her in person and over the phone, demanding that she complete a report. The next day, the Plaintiff reported the behavior to Human Resources.

On June 29, 2016, a grievance was filed on her behalf. Later, on November 14, 2016, she received a five-day suspension without pay based on false allegations. In response, she detailed her claims of workplace bullying and retaliation. On March 28, 2017, Dr. Perry reprimanded her and instructed her to avoid a colleague. When she objected and mentioned taking the issue to the Civil Service Commission, she faced further disciplinary action.

On April 4, 2017, she received a 20-day suspension for the same allegations that led to her previous suspension. She appealed, citing unfair treatment. On October 6, 2017, she received another 20-day suspension and was forced to leave the facility. She had already defended herself in administrative hearings and argued that her work benefited the community.

Despite her continued appeals, her suspension remained in effect. She was placed on administrative leave in July 2018 and ultimately terminated on October 23, 2020. She alleged that her dismissal resulted from discrimination and retaliation for filing complaints. Obienu maintained that her advocacy for patients’ rights and workplace fairness led to her removal.

Damages

The Plaintiff sought judgment against the Defendants for several forms of relief. This included compensatory damages, covering lost wages and emotional distress, which exceeded the Court’s minimum jurisdictional limits. The Plaintiff also sought reinstatement to the position of Health Education Coordinator, or a similar role, with appropriate salary, grade, benefits, and back pay.

Additionally, the Plaintiff requested legal costs incurred in the case, as permitted by law, along with interest on all claimed amounts, including prejudgment interest. Reasonable attorney’s fees were also sought, and the Plaintiff requested any further relief the Court found just and proper.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Princess Obienu
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Emmanuel C. Akudinobi
  • Defendant(s): County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as “County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services”)
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Calvin House

Claims

Plaintiff filed claims against Defendant County and others for race/national origin and disability discrimination. Under California law, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on these characteristics. The Defendant employed more than five people, making them subject to this law. The Plaintiff alleged that African American employees were treated unfairly compared to others, creating a hostile work environment. Despite the Plaintiff’s complaints, the Defendant failed to take action, worsening the situation.

As a result of the Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiff suffered significant emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of earnings. The total damages were to be determined at trial.

Additionally, the Plaintiff claimed discrimination based on disability. The law required employers not to discriminate against employees with disabilities and to provide reasonable accommodations. The Plaintiff requested minimal accommodations for medical needs but faced retaliation and mistreatment. The Defendant’s refusal to accommodate the Plaintiff contributed to emotional and physical distress, with damages to be determined at trial.

Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant failed to engage in the required interactive process regarding accommodation and retaliated against her. These failures caused significant harm, including lost income and ongoing distress. The Plaintiff sought compensation for these damages, including attorney’s fees.

Finally, the Plaintiff contended that the Defendant violated the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). Under the CFRA, eligible employees must be reinstated to their position after taking leave. The Defendant’s refusal to reclassify and accommodate the Plaintiff’s medical needs during her leave led to lost wages, emotional suffering, and other damages. The Plaintiff claimed retaliation for exercising her CFRA rights and sought compensation and relief from the Court.

Defense

Defendant County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as “County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services), responded to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint by denying all allegations, including claims of negligence or damage caused by Defendant or its employees. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any legal relief and raised multiple affirmative defenses. These included the argument that the Complaint failed to state a valid claim, the Plaintiff’s failure to minimize damages, and that the Plaintiff’s own conduct or delay in bringing the action contributed to her alleged harm.

The Defendant also cited various procedural issues, such as the statute of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and failure to participate in required processes. Additionally, Defendant claimed that any actions taken were in good faith, and any harm was either caused by Plaintiff’s own negligence or Defendant’s legitimate business practices. The Defendant reserved the right to add further defenses if necessary as the case proceeded.

Jury Verdict

On July 29, 2024, the jury deliberated and returned to court with its special verdict. The jury determined that Princess Obienu had a physical or mental condition that limited her ability to work and that the County of Los Angeles was aware of this condition. However, the jury found that the County did not fail to provide reasonable accommodation for her condition. Although Obienu requested accommodation and was willing to participate in the interactive process, the jury concluded that she was not willing to engage in this process in good faith.

On the issue of medical leave, the jury found that Obienu was eligible for medical leave and had requested it, but failed to provide reasonable notice to the County. Despite her request, the County did not refuse the leave outright, and Obienu was not subject to adverse employment action due to her medical leave request. The jury also concluded that Obienu’s misconduct was a substantial motivating reason for any adverse employment actions taken by the County.

Ultimately, the jury concluded that the County of Los Angeles’s retaliatory conduct was not a substantial factor in causing harm to Princess Obienu. Based on the special verdict, the jury found in favor of the Defendant, the County of Los Angeles. On September 03, 2024, the Hon. Jon R. Takasugi entered a judgment against the Plaintiff Princess Obienu.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com