Actually, he may or may not have been fired for refusing to work near asbestos, but the way an employer treated an employee for the refusal is disturbing if the employee’s allegations are true.
The case styled Robert Gomez, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lee Armstrong Co. Inc., et al., Defendants and Respondents from the Court of Appeal, 2nd District, California, is about wrongful termination but it has disturbing implications about what happened to an employee who refused to continue work when he encountered asbestos.
This appeal concerned Mr. Gomez’s claim that he was wrongfully terminated by Lee Armstrong Co., Inc. (LAC) in violation of public policy.
According to his allegations, Mr. Gomez had a long-term employment relationship with LAC as a floor-installer. Twice, when pulling up tiles or carpet on an LAC jobsite, he encountered the carcinogen asbestos. He notified his supervisors and refused to do additional work on those projects.
As a result, Mr. Gomez contended LAC reduced his work hours before firing him for his asbestos complaints, using the pretext that he refused to show up to work when ordered at a time when the employer knew he had conflicting childcare responsibilities. Why, because was he whining too much? An inconvenient employee who held up work progress for personal safety reasons? Who could blame him with all that we now know about asbestos?
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of LAC and Mr. Armstrong, finding insufficient evidence as to various elements of Mr. Gomez’s claims.
Mr. Gomez contended the trial court erroneously denied his motion for reconsideration.
The Appeals Court’s independent review demonstrated that summary judgment was properly granted and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the reconsideration motion. The Appeals Court therefore affirmed.
This post isn’t about wrongful termination; it’s speculation about how it appears an employer dealt with an employee who refused to work around unexpected asbestos and whether Mr. Gomez will in 30-40 years have an asbestos claim against that same company or if his obstinacy saved him. It is hard to know the whole story when reading a legal appeal. Hopefully news of cases like this won’t prevent others from refusing to work near asbestos when encountered unexpectedly for fear of reprisal.
