image: Nasty Gal

image: Nasty Gal

In case you forgot, Nasty Gal is currently facing three separate lawsuits in connection with its alleged practice of discriminating against employees of the basis of sex and pregnancy. In short: Nasty Gal allegedly discriminated against and wrongfully terminated at least three employees because of their gender and the fact that they were pregnant. (These cases are still pending).

But that is not all; it turns out, the Los Angeles-based fast fashion retailer and its “girl boss” owner, Sophia Amoruso, is also facing a lawsuit for discriminating against another female employee based on a mental or physical disability, in violation of both federal and California state law. Yes, not only has the retailer been accused of failing to “provide [state mandated] pregnancy leave and reinstatement [of employment after such leave]” for a number of employees, Nasty Gal is in legal trouble for allegedly discriminating against a seriously ill employee, as well.

According to Farah Saberi’s complaint, which was filed this spring (and overshadowed by the three pregnancy discrimination suits that were filed against Nasty Gal around the same time), after receiving heart transplant surgery and returning to work (where she allegedly maintained a 40-hour per week schedule), she was demoted, had her salary cut, and eventually was fired as a result of the “elimination of [her] role.” Saberi, who worked as an accountant for Nasty Gal, alleges that despite being promised insurance for a period of time upon her termination, the company failed to keep her on its plan, resulting in Saberi’s inability to fill her medications for various ailments and her suffering of a seizure and “severe emotional distress.” Moreover, due to the company’s failure to maintain her insurance, Saberi claims that she has been “placed on hold for her position on a [kidney and pancreas] transplant list, where she remains while verifying her new insurance.”

Saberi is suing the brand, which has been described in another recent lawsuit as a terrible place for professional women to work, on grounds of Discrimination in violation of FEHA, Wrongful Termination, Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Fraud (in connection with the lapsed insurance coverage), and Breach of Contract, among other claims. In addition to a jury trial, Saberi wants the company to pay upwards of $3 million in damages for its very un-“girl boss” behavior. 

Much like the other three cases in which Nasty Gal is a defendant, this case will likely be settled through arbitration, but stay tuned …