A former executive at Juul Labs has sued her ex-employer for allegedly discriminating against her and ultimately firing her after she became pregnant and took maternity leave.
Elizabeth Johannessen filed a lawsuit May 12 in San Francisco County Superior Court against Juul Labs. Her lawsuit accuses Juul Labs of violations of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) for allegedly firing Johannessen during job-protected maternity leave.
Johannessen is claiming JL discriminated against her by allegedly interfering with her medical rights; allegedly failing to provide reasonable accommodations for lactation-related needs; and allegedly retaliating against her while she took her protected leave. She further asserts that Juul refused to provide due process and would not engage in an interactive process, ultimately concluding in what she alleges to be wrongful termination.
According to the complaint, Johannessen began working for JL in March 2018 in JL's legal department as Senior Director, Compliance Operations. She is also a California licensed attorney. Early that fall, according to the complaint, Johannessen made her intentions known to her superiors within the organization that she wished to pursue a role offered in JL's legal department as Chief Compliance Officer. Shortly thereafter, she informed her supervisors that she was pregnant, according to the complaint.
According to the complaint, Johannessen was also part of the JL's team interviewing candidates for that role but was never considered for it. Another candidate, a male, was hired instead, the complaint says.
According to the complaint, JL is is not exempt or excluded from CFRA. Under California law, CFRA provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid leave time to bond with a new child. In addition, California law requires covered employers to provide employees who are unable to work because of pregnancy or childbirth with unpaid, job-protected leave or accommodations.
Johannessen contends she met the requirements under California law and followed JL policies for her requested and approved protected leave without interference. She asserts she was entitled to be free from discrimination and retaliation under CFRA, as she had worked at least 1,250 hours within a 12-month period preceding her protected leave.
When her maternity leave was close to its conclusion, Johannessen approached her supervisor seeking an additional 4 weeks extension. The request was approved. She also reached out to a senior manager to request medical accommodation when she returned for lactation/medical complications. Allegedly, her supevisor instructed her to speak directly with him and to not involve HR regarding her accommodation requests.
When she returned to work Sept. 30, 2019, allegedly expecting no change in her status or duties, she discovered her role and responsibilities had been reduced to an extent that it caused her alarm. She alleges she was routinely excluded from meetings and communication, blocked from documents and files her subordinates could still access and was consistently ignored by her supervisor when she attempted to speak with him about her concerns. She routinely expressed concerns about the lack of a proper lactation space, but was allegedly ignored.
According to the complaint, while she retained her title, Johannessen claims she was not returned to the same position she held before she left, as her responsibilities, management functions and scope, and her support for her role allegedly all were substantially changed.
According to the complaint, she was laid off in May 2020 without reason and subsequently also allegedly denied a six month severance, which she said had been previously agreed to.
Johannessen is seeking damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, court costs and legal fees. She is demanding a trial by jury.
She is represented by attorneys Elizabeth M. Peck, Mythily Sivarajah, and Shahla A. Khan of the firm of Peck Law, of Santa Cruz.