August 30, 2021
Scott Floodman, a former behavioral associate at Duffy’s Napa Valley Rehab (“Duffy’s), a drug & alcohol addiction treatment center in Northern California, filled a lawsuit alleging disability and medical condition discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Mr. Floodman also alleges that Duffy’s failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation and failed to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process after Mr. Floodman was diagnosed with colon cancer.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Floodman alleges that he began suffering from symptoms of colon cancer and was taken off work for some time on or about May 14, 2020. Mr. Floodman alleges that he continued to see doctors until his colon cancer diagnosis was finalized near the end of 2020.
Mr. Floodman is also alleging interference and retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) due to Duffy’s failure to provide all statutorily required notices so as to permit Mr. Floodman to exercise his rights under the Act. Mr. Floodman’s lawsuit alleges that he was an employee eligible to take CFRA leave to take care of himself for his serious health condition, and who did request such leave. However, Mr. Floodman alleges that Duffy’s retaliated against him for taking medical leave by terminating his employment.
The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Floodman was a good employee who received positive reviews on a consistent year-to-year basis that emphasized his reliability, teamwork, and attendance. The lawsuit also alleges that despite these positive reviews, Mr. Floodman was wrongfully terminated on or about November 27, 2020 under the excuse of “job abandonment.” Mr. Floodman alleges Duffy’s retaliated against him by terminating his employment on the basis of his request to Human Resources (HR) to take a legally protected leave of absence.
Mr. Floodman’s complaint also contains a cause of action for Defamation Per Se as Mr. Floodman further alleges that Duffy’s made false and defamatory statements which include but are not limited to express and implied accusations that Mr. Floodman failed to abide by corporate policy, was absent without excuse, and failed to keep Duffy’s informed of the need for protected leave for purposes of excusing his absences, in a manner that violated company policy. Mr. Floodman alleges that these statement and similar statements by Duffy’s expressly and impliedly assert that Mr. Floodman was not a good employee, was absent without good reason or excuse, and refused to adhere to company policy when offered the opportunity to do so, all of which Mr. Floodman claims as false.
Mr. Floodman is represented by Attorney Kyle Todd, Esq. of Kyle Todd, P.C. Requests for comment can be directed to Attorney Kyle Todd, at (323) 208-9171 or email@example.com.