Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans
United States District Court for the Central District of California
16 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (1998)
- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
Vivian Vasquez claimed that her coworker Scott Folb (plaintiff) had sexually harassed her. Vasquez engaged in mediation with the Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans (the plans) (defendant) for the purpose of settling any claims against the plans arising out of Folb’s purported harassment. Vasquez and the plans failed to negotiate an agreement but continued settlement discussions following mediation until Vasquez’s claims were settled. The plans later discharged Folb. Folb sued the plans for discrimination and retaliation, alleging that the plans had used the sexual-harassment claims as a pretext to discharge Folb for whistleblowing activities. Folb maintained that the plans took contrary positions in the two cases. Specifically, Folb contended that in Folb’s action, the plans argued that Folb was properly dismissed for sexual harassment, while in negotiations with Vasquez, the plans may have claimed that Vasquez was not actually harassed. Thus, Folb sought production of communications between Vasquez’s counsel and the plans’ counsel regarding the mediation as well as other documents prepared by Vasquez’s counsel relating to the negotiations.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Paez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.