No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The California Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict that the employee was wrongfully discharged based on her disability. The court reinstated the harassment claim, rejected the Court of Appeal's reduction of compensatory damages, and established that punitive damages could not exceed the amount of compensatory damages awarded.
Roby v. McKesson Corp.: Major Win for Disabled Workers
This case involved a McKesson Corporation employee who claimed she was wrongfully fired because of her disability. She also alleged that the company harassed her, discriminated against her, retaliated against her, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability.
The California Supreme Court sided with the employee, upholding a jury's $4.5 million verdict in her favor. The court found that McKesson wrongfully terminated her due to her disability. Importantly, the court reversed an appeals court decision that had reduced her compensation and threw out her harassment claim. The Supreme Court ruled that both should be reinstated at their full amounts.
This ruling matters significantly for workers with disabilities. It demonstrates that California courts will strongly protect disabled employees from discrimination and wrongful termination. The large financial award sends a clear message to employers that disability discrimination is costly. The decision also reinforces that companies must provide reasonable accommodations and cannot retaliate against workers who assert their rights. For workers facing similar situations, this case shows that substantial compensation is possible when employers violate disability rights laws.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.