A former Allied Universal Security Services guard who sued the company, alleging she was wrongfully terminated in 2023 for getting pregnant and taking maternity leave, can take her case to a jury, a judge ruled Thursday.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Doreen B. Boxer denied a motion by Allied Universal Security Services to compel arbitration of Raquel Rojas’ complaint, which includes allegations of harassment, discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract.
Rojas’ lawyers maintained Allied was prevented from seeking arbitration because by the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which allows individuals who have been the victim of sexual assault or harassment to pursue their claims in court rather than being bound by a mandatory arbitration agreement like the one the defense maintained was binding on Rojas.
“The court determines that the complaint properly alleges conclusions of harassment, along with conduct, including silent treatment and severe work reduction to the point of unemployment insurance applicability, which constitute sexual harassment based upon pregnancy discrimination that had conveyed a hostile message to plaintiff,” Boxer wrote.
Allied attorneys maintained in their court papers that Rojas signed a September 2019 employment agreement to arbitrate any work-related disputes and that she had not presented a case of sexual harassment. The company’s lawyers also denied Rojas’ allegations in general and cited multiple defenses, including violation of the statute of limitations and that any harm to the plaintiff was not caused by Allied.
Rojas was hired in to provide customer service and security for Allied Universal clients.
“Rojas was a dedicated and diligent employee, consistently showing her commitment by taking on multiple events in a single day, often stepping in when other employees were unwilling to do so,” according to the suit, which further states she often worked more than 12 hours daily.
But after Rojas became pregnant in April 2022, informed her male supervisors, they were unsympathetic and one of them declined her request to be relieved early during one shift in which she had been on duty for more than 10 hours, the suit states.
Rojas, whose pregnancy was considered high-risk, felt discouraged, according to the suit filed last Nov. 26 when the plaintiff was 32 years old.
The plaintiff’s request to human resources for work adjustments that involved less standing and supported by a doctor’s note were ignored, the suit states. From then on, Rojas started receiving fewer shifts, according to the suit.
Rojas went on maternity leave in December 2022 and when she sought to return to work three months later, she was told she would have to reapply for her job because she had not worked since two months before her leave and thus was no longer an employee, the suit alleges.
“Rojas was both shocked and devastated by this news,” the suit states.
Rojas explained that up until her maternity leave she was willing to work, but had not received any assignments, according to the suit, which further states that the plaintiff has suffered economic losses and emotional distress since losing her job.