Veteran Receives $1M Verdict for Wrongful Termination Against the City of Santa Ana

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."

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.

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).

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.

The Court granted a new trial, reducing the amount to $450,000 through remittitur.