Quantcast

Plaintiff alleges Assisted Home Recovery violated employment laws after cancer diagnosis

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Thursday, February 13, 2025

Plaintiff alleges Assisted Home Recovery violated employment laws after cancer diagnosis

State Court
Webp 60fnw1hnf1bsqh5r1sbkd96rmq6w

Ventura County Superior Court | Official Website

Adriana Reyes, a former employee of Assisted Home Recovery, Inc., has filed a lawsuit alleging multiple violations of employment law after her termination following a medical leave for cancer treatment. The complaint was filed on February 3, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura against Assisted Home Recovery, Inc.

Reyes claims that during her employment as an Intake Coordinator at the Ventura office of Assisted Home Recovery from October 2022 until August 2024, she was subjected to discrimination and retaliation due to her medical condition. Diagnosed with breast cancer in September 2023, Reyes informed her employer and requested reasonable accommodations including medical leave for surgery and chemotherapy. Despite these requests being protected under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Reyes alleges that the company failed to engage in an interactive process to accommodate her needs and instead made it clear that her job might not be held open during her absence.

According to the complaint, Reyes's requests for temporary remote work during chemotherapy were denied without any attempt by the company to explore possible accommodations or assess undue hardship. Furthermore, upon returning from leave on August 15, 2024, she found her position had been eliminated under what she describes as false pretenses of restructuring. Reyes asserts that these actions were retaliatory measures taken by Assisted Home Recovery for exercising her rights under CFRA and FEHA.

Reyes is seeking damages for emotional distress, loss of earnings, attorney fees, and punitive damages among other reliefs. She contends that the company's policies systematically discriminate against employees with disabilities by failing to provide necessary accommodations or job protection beyond CFRA provisions.

The case is being handled by attorneys Michael J. Kent and Emily R. Pincin from Kent | Pincin LLP. The presiding judge is yet to be named in case number 2O025CLUIQEO037YH3.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News