Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?
Case Name Fotheringham v. Avery Dennison
Date 03/19/2008
Note [Unpublished] It was up to Fotheringham to demonstrate that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether Avery Dennison terminated her employment in retaliation for engaging an attorney to represent her and seek accommodations. Fotheringham met that burden. She produced evidence that Avery Dennison fired her the day after it received her attorney's letter requesting accommodations.
Citation B187949
WCC Citation WCC 33282008 CA
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Pre-Litigation Background Silvana Fotheringham was a representative in Avery Dennison's Consumer Call Service Center, where she answered consumer inquiries about Avery Dennison products. Breakdown of the Interactive Process Avery Dennison contends that Fotheringham caused the breakdown in the interactive process because after her attorney wrote the November 27 letter to Avery Dennison, Avery Dennison "offered to sit down and discuss the issues with [counsel]," but "nothing else happened. "What Avery Dennison neglects to mention is that its letter offering to discuss the employment issues came after Avery Dennison had told Fotheringham that she no longer had a job. Whether in 1999 Avery Dennison tried to mislead the DFEH with the date on a job analysis, if this is what Fotheringham could prove, is not relevant to whether Avery Dennison properly accommodated Fotheringham's disability. Fotheringham also contends that because Avery Dennison's insurer made the workers' compensation payments and there was no evidence that the insurer had assigned collection rights to Avery Dennison, Avery Dennison was not entitled to the offset for the workers' compensation settlement.

Download full case here.