race discrimination Archives - HELMER FRIEDMAN LLP 310-396-7714

Elevance Health Sued for Disability Discrimination
Gallery
Elevance Health Sued for Disability Discrimination

Case Update, disability discrimination, employment law, Failure to Pay Wages, Front Page News, Greg Helmer, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, national origin discrimination, race discrimination, Reasonable Accommodations, retaliation, wage theft, wrongful termination

Elevance Health Sued for Disability Discrimination

Health Insurance Giant Anthem/Elevance Fires Veteran Nurse of 17 Years Who Suffers from Debilitating Nerve Disease — After Repeatedly Refusing Her Accommodation Requests and Punishing Her for Making Them

Helmer Friedman LLP & The Carr Law Group Represent Former Elevance Health, Inc. Employee Priscilla Kamoi Accusing Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, Inc. of Illegal Employment Practices

March 16, 2026 (Los Angeles, California) – Priscilla Kamoi, a licensed Registered Nurse and a 17-year veteran of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. She alleges that the healthcare giant discriminated against her based on her disability and medical condition, refused to provide reasonable accommodations, retaliated against her for requesting those accommodations, and ultimately terminated her employment. The defendants named in the lawsuit include Elevance Health, Inc., Blue Cross of California, and other related entities, as well as several individual supervisors. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 26STCV08319). The lawsuit was announced today by the Los Angeles law firms of Helmer Friedman LLP and The Carr Law Group.

According to the complaint, Ms. Kamoi began her employment with the defendants (then known as “Wellpoint”) in August 2008 as a case management nurse in Woodland Hills, California. Throughout her 17 years with the company, her performance was exemplary—she received regular salary increases, annual bonuses, and consistently strong performance evaluations.

The law is clear: an employer cannot penalize a disabled employee for being disabled, nor can it refuse to provide simple accommodations—like a little extra time—and then use the employee’s resulting ‘performance deficiency’ as a pretext for dismissal. That is precisely what the law against disability discrimination seeks to prevent.

In her complaint, Ms. Kamoi alleges that beginning in late 2018, she developed a debilitating condition known as severe trigeminal neuralgia, which caused excruciating, electric-shock-like pain radiating into her head and face, as well as difficulties with speaking, chewing, swallowing, and sleeping. In a January 2023 email to her supervisors, she included photographs of herself during a pain episode, describing the ordeal as so severe that she could not eat dinner until after 11:00 p.m., when the pain finally subsided.

There is a cruel irony in a major health insurance company—one that profits from the healthcare system—showing such little regard for the health and dignity of a nurse who has dedicated 17 years to caring for its members.

The complaint outlines a relentless cycle spanning nearly three years: the defendants imposed stringent new hourly productivity quotas on Ms. Kamoi, then disciplined her when her disability prevented her from meeting those quotas. They subsequently refused her repeated requests for reasonable accommodations and then disciplined her again. According to the complaint, when Ms. Kamoi disclosed her limitations to a supervisor, she was told, “Then get another job.” After her physician submitted a formal accommodation request in May 2024—asking only for necessary breaks and additional time to complete assignments during pain episodes—the defendants denied the request within two weeks.

Ms. Kamoi alleges a pattern of escalating retaliation: productivity standards were increased again in January 2025; her performance was monitored on a stringent weekly basis, while other nurses were reviewed monthly; and on May 22, 2025, she was summoned to a meeting and fired. The complaint also states that Ms. Kamoi, as a Kenyan-born Black woman, experienced discrimination based on her race and national origin.

Current and former employees of Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Cross of California, or Elevance Health, Inc. who wish to report their work experiences or learn more about the lawsuit should complete a case evaluation form.

Commenting on California law, Gregory Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP stated, “The law is clear: an employer cannot penalize a disabled employee for being disabled, nor can it refuse to provide simple accommodations—like a little extra time—and then use the employee’s resulting ‘performance deficiency’ as a pretext for dismissal. That is precisely what the law against disability discrimination seeks to prevent.” James Carr added, “There is a cruel irony in a major health insurance company—one that profits from the healthcare system—showing such little regard for the health and dignity of a nurse who has dedicated 17 years to caring for its members.”

For more information about this lawsuit, please contact Gregory Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP at (310-396-7714 or ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com) or James Carr of The Carr Law Group at (310-919-8057 or james@carrlawgrp.com).

Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Ms. Kamoi, please contact Mr. Helmer and/or Mr. Carr.

DOCUMENTS:

Complaint for Damages – Case No. 26STCV08319 – Priscilla Kamoi v. Elevance Health Inc., Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Cross of California, Celia Zarate, Monica Gagnon, Sharon Johnson. – Disability Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate Disability, Failure to Engage in Good Faith Process, Retaliation, National Origin Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Failure to Pay Wages, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

MEDIA COVERAGE

Press Release – Health Insurance Giant Anthem/Elevance Fires Veteran Nurse of 17 Years Who Suffers from Debilitating Nerve Disease — After Repeatedly Refusing Her Accommodation Requests and Punishing Her for Making Them
National Today – Veteran Nurse Sues Elevance Health for Firing Her Over Disability
Market Watch – Helmer Friedman LLP Files Suit Alleging that Elevance Fired Veteran Nurse with Debilitating Nerve Injury for Working too Slow

Staff2026-03-18T08:26:58-08:00March 16th, 2026|Case Update, disability discrimination, employment law, Failure to Pay Wages, Front Page News, Greg Helmer, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, national origin discrimination, race discrimination, Reasonable Accommodations, retaliation, wage theft, wrongful termination|Comments Off

Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful
Gallery
Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

Andrew Friedman, Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination

Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

Helmer Friedman LLP, announced today that the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has held that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. In this lawsuit, Los Angeles-based Helmer Friedman LLP and Washington, D.C-based co-counsel Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, represent Cecelia Carter with respect to her claims of wrongful termination, race discrimination and retaliation. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. 30-2013-00647896-CU-WT-CJC (Orange County Sup. Ct., filed May 3, 2013). According to the Complaint, Ms. Carter reported her concern that several Fannie Mae REO Foreclosure Specialists in the Irvine, California office had allegedly solicited illegal kickbacks from brokers in exchange for assigning Fannie Mae REO listings to those brokers. Shortly after, Fannie Mae initiated an investigation into Ms. Carter’s performance and then, on May 4, 2011, terminated her without explanation. On March 26, 2013, a federal grand jury charged Armando Granillo, one of the REO Foreclosure Specialists from the Irvine office, with three counts of “honest services” wire fraud for allegedly soliciting kickbacks from a real estate broker in Tucson, Arizona, in exchange for providing him with foreclosed properties to sell on behalf of Fannie Mae. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Granillo was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for his role in the kickback scheme. For more information about Mr. Granillo’s conviction, see http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-fannie-kickbacks-sentencing-20140804-story.html

After Ms. Carter filed her Complaint, Fannie Mae moved to compel arbitration. The Superior Court denied Fannie Mae’s motion, holding that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that Ms. Carter and Fannie Mae entered into an arbitration agreement. The Superior Court found that, although the Offer Letter referenced the arbitration policy, Fannie Mae did not include the arbitration agreement with its Offer Letter and did not tell her where to find it; Fannie Mae then revoked the Offer letter; and Fannie Mae’s subsequent offer of employment did not contain or reference an arbitration provision. Fannie Mae appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on other grounds, holding that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was inherently one-sided in that it exempted the types of claims likely to be filed by Fannie Mae, but included the types of claims likely to be filed by the employee. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. G049112, 2014 WL 4212622 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Aug. 26, 2014). The arbitration agreement covered “all” claims an employee might make involving a legally protected right relating directly or indirectly to the employee’s employment, but exempted “any claim made in connection with workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation benefits, or under any of Fannie Mae’s employee welfare benefits, ERISA, or pension plans, or to any claim of unfair competition, disclosure of trade secrets, or breach of trust or fiduciary duty.” During oral argument, Fannie Mae’s counsel emphasized the aspects of the agreement it claimed were beneficial to the employee. However, the Court of Appeal held that “

[i]t makes no difference that, arguably, the dispute resolution policy isn’t entirely one-sided” and found that the allegedly positive aspects of the agreement do not “save the agreement as a whole when it contains other provisions that have been clearly held to be unconscionable in the case law.”

“We are very pleased that the Court of Appeal rejected Fannie Mae’s attempt to force Ms. Carter into arbitration,” commented Ms. Loveless. “For years, employers have attempted to destroy one of our Country’s greatest institution – the jury trial – by forcing employees and consumers into secret tribunals that favor large corporations over individuals. The founders of our Country enshrined the right to a jury trial in our Constitution and corporations should not be allowed to take that right away.” The Court of Appeal’s decision may also significantly affect the ability of other Fannie Mae employees to bring their claims in court, rather than be forced into arbitration.

For a PDF copy of the Court of Appeal decision, click here.

For additional information or to report unlawful conduct on the part of Fannie Mae, contact:

Andrew H. Friedman