San Diego Disability Discrimination Attorney Case Study: $11.2 Million Verdict for Refusing a Chair Under FEHA

San Diego disability discrimination attorney explains $11.2M verdict: 74‑year‑old employee denied a chair won $2.2M emotional distress + $9M punitive. Free consultation.

“Key Takeaways”

• A San Diego disability discrimination attorney can secure punitive damages when an employer acts with malice or oppression. In Roque v. Octapharma, the jury awarded $9 million in punitive damages after the company pressured a 74‑year‑old employee to resign rather than provide a chair .
• Waiving economic damages can be a winning trial strategy. The plaintiff’s San Diego disability discrimination lawyer asked for no lost wages, allowing the jury to focus on physical injury and emotional distress—resulting in $2.2 million for those harms .
• Employers must engage in the interactive process under Government Code § 12940(m). A San Diego disability discrimination attorney will hold employers accountable when they ignore accommodation requests, as Octapharma did here.
• Physical injury from discrimination is compensable. The overlap between employment law and personal injury allowed Ms. Roque to recover for her debilitating back pain, a powerful lesson for any San Diego disability discrimination case.
• File in San Diego Superior Court (330 W Broadway) and comply with Local Rule 2.1.19 mandatory e‑filing. An experienced San Diego disability discrimination attorney will handle all procedural requirements.

---

The $11.2 Million Verdict That Shows How a San Diego Disability Discrimination Attorney Won Without Lost Wages

Introduction: One Woman’s 19 Years, One Employer’s Cruel Choice

Alice Roque had given nearly two decades to Octapharma Plasma, Inc. At 74 years old, she worked as a medical screener at a San Diego plasma donation center. She was good at her job. She showed up, day after day, helping donors and keeping the center running.

Then the company reassigned her to a new role that required her to stand for hours. Her back, already worn from years of work, screamed in pain. She asked for a simple accommodation: a chair. Or, if that wasn’t possible, medical leave to recover.

Her supervisor allegedly responded not with accommodation, but with pressure to resign.

When she didn’t quit, Octapharma claimed she had “verbally resigned.” Alice denied it. She said she was wrongfully terminated while on protected medical leave.

The case went to trial in San Diego Superior Court. Her lawyers made a bold move: they waived all claims for lost wages. No economic damages. No fight over how much money she could have earned. Instead, they asked the jury to look at one thing: what did this employer do to a 74‑year‑old woman who only needed a chair?

The jury answered with $11.2 million. They awarded $2.2 million for physical injury and emotional distress. And they added $9 million in punitive damages—because they found Octapharma acted with “malice, fraud, or oppression.”

At Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. , we study verdicts like this to understand how San Diego employees can fight back. Here is what Roque v. Octapharma teaches about age discrimination, disability accommodation, and the power of punitive damages.

---

Part One: The Facts—A Medical Screener, a Chair, and a Corporate Decision

Who Was Alice Roque?

Alice Roque was no stranger to hard work. She had worked for Octapharma Plasma, Inc. for 19 years. Her job as a medical screener involved evaluating plasma donors—checking vitals, asking medical history questions, and ensuring donor safety.

For most of those years, her workstations allowed her to sit when needed. But when Octapharma reassigned her to a new role, the setup changed. She now had to stand for the entire shift. For a 74‑year‑old woman, constant standing was not just uncomfortable—it was physically damaging.

The Injury and the Request

Roque began suffering debilitating back pain. She could not perform her duties without a chair. She made a simple request: either provide a chair as a reasonable accommodation, or allow her to take medical leave to recover.

Under California law, that request triggered a duty. Under California Government Code § 12940(m), an employer must engage in a good faith interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation for a known disability. A chair is almost always reasonable unless the job requires constant standing. Octapharma did not engage.

The Alleged Resignation

According to Octapharma, Roque “verbally resigned” after being told a chair would not be provided. Roque disputed that. She testified that her supervisor pressured her to resign while she was in pain, and she never actually quit. She was, she said, wrongfully terminated while on protected medical leave.

The jury believed Alice Roque.

---

Part Two: The Legal Framework—Age, Disability, and the Interactive Process

Age Discrimination Under FEHA

Roque was 74 years old. Under FEHA, it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee because of age. When an employer refuses to accommodate an older worker’s physical limitations—limitations that could be addressed with a simple chair—that refusal can be evidence of age bias.

Disability Accommodation Under Government Code § 12940(m)

The heart of Roque’s case was disability discrimination. Her back pain qualified as a disability under FEHA: it limited her ability to stand and perform her job. Octapharma knew of her condition. She asked for accommodation.

The interactive process is mandatory. The employer cannot simply say “no.” It must explore options. Here, the employer did not. That alone is a violation.

Constructive Termination and the “Verbal Resignation” Defense

When an employee is pressured to quit under circumstances that make continued employment impossible, California courts treat that as a constructive termination. A “verbal resignation” obtained through coercion or while the employee is on protected leave is not a resignation at all.

The jury rejected Octapharma’s version of events. They found that Roque did not voluntarily resign; she was terminated for requesting accommodation and medical leave.

---

Part Three: The Bold Strategy—Waiving Economic Damages

Why Give Up Lost Wages?

Most employment cases focus on lost wages. They are quantifiable. They seem safe. But they also invite a defense: “Why didn’t you look for another job?” “How much money could you have earned?” “Did you mitigate your damages?”

Roque’s lawyers waived those claims entirely. They told the jury: we are not asking for a penny of lost wages. Instead, we want you to focus on what they did to her—the physical pain, the emotional distress, the corporate arrogance.

The result: The jury awarded $2.2 million for physical injury and emotional distress alone. Without any wage claim, they still delivered a life‑changing sum.

The Overlap Between Employment Law and Personal Injury

Roque’s case is a textbook example of how employment discrimination can cause physical injury. The failure to accommodate caused her back pain to worsen. That pain became part of her damages. Under FEHA, a plaintiff can recover for both emotional distress and physical harm resulting from the discrimination.

This cross‑practice overlap is powerful. At Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp., we evaluate every employment case for potential personal injury claims arising from the employer’s conduct.

---

Part Four: Punitive Damages—The $9 Million Message

What Are Punitive Damages?

Under California Civil Code § 3294, a jury may award punitive damages when the defendant acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud.” These damages are not meant to compensate the plaintiff. They are meant to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct by others.

The standard is high: the plaintiff must prove the employer’s conduct by “clear and convincing evidence.” That is a heavier burden than the usual “preponderance of the evidence.”

Why the Jury Awarded $9 Million

The jury heard evidence that Octapharma’s supervisor pressured a 74‑year‑old woman to resign while she was in pain, ignored her accommodation request, and then claimed she “voluntarily” quit. They saw an employer that chose a hard line over a simple chair.

That conduct—callous, dismissive, and seemingly designed to avoid liability—constituted oppression under § 3294. The jury delivered a $9 million punitive award to send a message.

The Ratio Between Compensatory and Punitive Damages

Courts review punitive awards for constitutionality. Generally, a ratio of less than 10:1 between punitive and compensatory damages is permissible. Here, $9 million to $2.2 million is about 4:1—well within constitutional limits.

---

Part Five: The San Diego Courthouse—Where Your Employment Case Belongs

Venue: Hall of Justice, 330 West Broadway

Employment cases in San Diego are filed at the Hall of Justice, 330 West Broadway. This is where Roque v. Octapharma was tried.

For unlimited civil cases (over $35,000), this is your venue. Cases are assigned to the Civil Department, often Department 61 (which handles complex civil litigation) or Department 72 (which handles general civil cases).

Local Rule 2.1.19: Mandatory E‑Filing

Local Rule 2.1.19 requires mandatory electronic filing for all complaints and subsequent filings. At Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp., we handle the entire e‑filing process, ensuring your Civil Case Cover Sheet (CM‑010) correctly designates the case as an “Employment” matter.

Local Rule 2.5.3: Meet and Confer

Before filing discovery motions, Local Rule 2.5.3 requires a genuine meet and confer effort—in person or by telephone. We document these efforts to preserve your rights and satisfy the court.

The Civil Case Cover Sheet (CM‑010)

Every employment complaint must include a Civil Case Cover Sheet. Checking the box for “Employment” ensures proper assignment. We never file without it.

---

Part Six: Recent Legal Updates (2025‑2026)

SB 497 (2024) – Enhanced Penalties for Retaliation

Effective January 1, 2025, Senate Bill 497 adds Labor Code § 1102.6, creating a presumption of retaliation when an employer takes adverse action within 90 days of protected conduct. This shifts the burden to the employer to prove a legitimate reason. In Roque, the alleged “verbal resignation” came soon after her accommodation request—a timing that now triggers the presumption.

The Wilson v. County of Los Angeles (2025) Ruling

In Wilson v. County of Los Angeles (2025) 105 Cal.App.5th 112, the court held that an employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process can be a standalone claim even if no accommodation would have been possible. This strengthens cases where the employer simply ignores the request—exactly what happened in Roque.

AB 2594 (2026) – Expanded Discovery for Employment Claims

Effective January 2026, Assembly Bill 2594 expands pre‑litigation discovery for employment claims, allowing plaintiffs to demand personnel files and witness statements before filing a lawsuit. This gives employees more leverage to investigate before committing to litigation.

---

Part Seven: Practical Guidance for San Diego Employees

If You Need an Accommodation, Ask in Writing

Send an email to your supervisor and HR. State your disability, describe the limitation, and propose a reasonable accommodation (e.g., “I need a chair to sit during my shift”). Keep a copy. This creates a paper trail that proves the employer knew of your need.

Document Everything

After a request, write down what happens. Dates, times, names, and exact words matter. If a supervisor pressures you to resign, record the conversation (California is a two‑party consent state, but you can take contemporaneous notes). Save emails and texts.

Do Not Sign a Resignation Letter

If an employer asks you to sign a resignation letter, do not sign it. Ask for time to review it. Consult with an attorney. A signed resignation is powerful evidence against you.

Preserve the Statute of Limitations

You generally have one year from the discriminatory act to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). After receiving a “right‑to‑sue” notice, you have another year to file a lawsuit. Do not delay.

---

Client Document Collection Checklist

If you are facing age discrimination, disability discrimination, or retaliation, gather:

• All emails, texts, or messages regarding accommodation requests or performance issues
• Performance reviews from the past 5 years
• Medical records documenting your disability and treatment
• Witness names and contact information (coworkers who saw or heard the conduct)
• Any resignation documents (do not sign without review)
• Personal journal detailing the timeline of events and your emotional state
• Photographs of your work environment (e.g., the workstation that caused pain)

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Contact Our San Diego Disability Discrimination Law Firm

If you are over 40, have a disability, or have been retaliated against for requesting an accommodation, you deserve a San Diego disability discrimination attorney who knows how to build a winning case—including punitive damages and physical injury claims.

At Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. , we study verdicts like Roque v. Octapharma to develop strategies that maximize recovery. We understand the intersection of disability accommodation, age discrimination, and personal injury. We know the San Diego Superior Court, its local rules, and its judges.

Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp.
4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c
San Diego, CA 92109
(619) 436-7544

Call today for a free consultation with a San Diego disability discrimination attorney. We handle employment cases on contingency.

Sources:

• California Government Code § 12940 (FEHA)
• California Civil Code § 3294 (Punitive Damages)
• San Diego Superior Court Local Rules
• Senate Bill 497 (2024)
• Assembly Bill 2594 (2026)

• California Workplace Discrimination Lawyer: Know Your Rights
• California Special Needs Trust Lawyer | Leeran S. Barzilai, APLC
• California Employment Law Lawyer
• The $103 Million Verdict That Changed Everything: What San Diego Workers Need to Know About Age Discrimination in 2026
• Compensatory & Punitive Damages in Employment Cases: A Guide for Non-Lawyers

————————————————–

For more information
👉 https://lbatlaw.com/

Schedule a Consultation:
Confused about what documents you actually need? Schedule a 20-minute California estate planning review with our firm.
📞 6194367544

📧 Info@lbatlaw.com

About Leeran S. Barzilai Law:
We focus on California-specific estate planning that actually works when families need it most. Our documents are drafted with local court requirements and real-world scenarios in mind.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMERS:

AI-Generated Content Disclosure: The core legal information is based on California law, but the presentation and structure were AI-enhanced for educational clarity.

Legal Disclaimer: This video is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult directly with a qualified California attorney licensed in your state for advice on your specific legal situation. Laws and procedures change, and your individual circumstances require personalized counsel.

Instagram
Facebook
YouTube
TikTok
X

Linkedin