Marcus Webster v. The Regents of the University of California, a public corporation, et al.

Case Background

Plaintiff Marcus Webster filed this wrongful termination lawsuit against The Regents of the University of California, a public corporation overseeing the University of California, including UCLA, for harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judge Anne Richardson presided over the case. [Case number: 22STCV30740]

Cause

Plaintiff Marcus Webster had been hired as a Support Services Assistant Manager at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in January 2022. He believed his background as an anesthesia technologist and firefighter paramedic made him well-suited for the role.

However, shortly after starting, Webster encountered significant issues with staffing and management. His supervisors, Sasha Young and Jasmine Briones, did not provide him with adequate training. He found the work environment to be drastically different from what they had promised. Employees under his supervision, including Jeffrey Hernandez, frequently violated policies without consequence, and management ignored Webster’s attempts to address these issues.

Webster escalated these concerns, including incidents of employee misconduct and racist behavior by staff, particularly Brenda Quiroga. Despite his efforts, including raising patient safety concerns, management, led by Briones, refused to take action. Webster’s attempts to discipline employees were undermined, and his ability to enforce policies was restricted. Briones even instructed him not to train a newly hired African American employee, Montiel Poteat, whom she later fired after setting him up to fail.

Webster formally reported the issues to Human Resources, but his complaints were dismissed. He soon became the target of false accusations orchestrated by Quiroga, including sexual harassment and union-busting allegations. Despite a lack of prior disciplinary actions against him, Webster was placed on investigatory leave in May 2022 and terminated in June. He believes his firing was retaliation for his whistleblowing on patient safety violations and racial discrimination.

Webster asserts that his termination was in retaliation for his complaints about unsafe working conditions and racial discrimination, which went unaddressed by his superiors.

Damages

Webster sought general and special damages. Webster sought double compensatory damages under California Labor Code § 970. He also asked for attorneys’ fees in accordance with several statutes.

Webster requested reimbursement for all costs incurred in the suit. He also sought all available penalties under California Labor Code §§ 203, 226, and 558, as well as any other applicable statutes. He asked for an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, as allowed by law and based on trial evidence.

Webster requested post-judgment interest on all unpaid amounts. Additionally, he sought declaratory relief as outlined in his complaint. He also asked for the injunctive relief he had requested in his filings. Finally, he asked for any other relief that the Court may deem just and proper.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Marcus Webster
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Lauren E. Grochow | Daniel Kalinowski
  • Defendant(s): The Regents of the University of California
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael W. Healy | Skylar R. Pascal

Claims

First Cause of Action: Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA (Against UC Regents and Does 1-50)

Webster alleged discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He is of mixed African American and Caucasian descent, a protected class under the FEHA. Webster claimed UC Regents discriminated against him by denying him employment benefits, and privileges, and ultimately wrongfully terminating him based on his race. He sought damages for lost income, emotional distress, and career damage, as well as reimbursement for legal expenses and attorney’s fees.

Second Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA (Against UC Regents and Does 1-50)

Webster filed a retaliation claim under the FEHA, alleging that UC Regents took adverse actions, including termination, after he raised concerns about racial discrimination and harassment. This retaliation was unlawful under the FEHA. He sought compensation for lost income, emotional distress, and damage to his career, along with attorney’s fees for legal expenses incurred.

Third Cause of Action: Harassment in Violation of the FEHA (Against UC Regents and Does 1-50)

Webster claimed UC Regents subjected him to severe or pervasive harassment based on his race, creating a hostile work environment. Despite supervisors being aware of the harassment, they failed to intervene. Webster sought damages for emotional distress and other harm, along with attorney’s fees.

Fourth Cause of Action: Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of the FEHA (Against UC Regents and Does 1-50)

Webster asserted that UC Regents failed to take necessary steps to prevent discrimination and harassment, despite being aware of the unlawful conduct. This failure caused him further harm, and he sought damages for lost income, emotional distress, and attorney’s fees.

Fifth Cause of Action: Retaliation Under California Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 (Against UC Regents and Does 1-50)

Webster claimed retaliation under California Health & Safety Code § 1278.5, alleging that UC Regents terminated him for reporting unsafe patient care and conditions. He sought damages for lost income, emotional distress, and legal fees.

Sixth Cause of Action: Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Against UC Regents and Does 1-50)

Webster requested declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to declare the rights and duties of the parties. They also requested the court to issue an injunction requiring UC Regents to adopt policies and training to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the future.

Seventh Cause of Action: Retaliation Under Labor Code § 1102.5 (Against UC Regents and Does 1-50)

Webster filed a claim under California Labor Code § 1102.5, alleging UC Regents retaliated against him for reporting discrimination, harassment, and unsafe conditions. He sought compensation for economic and emotional damages, as well as attorney’s fees.

Defense

Defendant The Regents of the University of California responded to Marcus Webster’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC), denying all allegations and asserting several defenses. They argued that Webster’s SAC failed to state a valid claim, that he lacked standing, and that the statute of limitations barred his case. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that Webster had waived his rights, was estopped from making claims, and had acted with unclean hands.

The Defendant also raised issues of unreasonable delay in bringing the lawsuit, alleging that Webster failed to mitigate his damages. They contended that any potential damages should be offset by compensation from other sources.

Several immunities were cited, including governmental immunities and protections under the U.S. and California constitutions. The Defendant argued that the claims were not supported by facts that would justify awarding attorney’s fees. Further, they contended that after-acquired evidence would reduce or bar Webster’s recovery.

The Defendant emphasized that Webster’s employment was at will. Any adverse actions taken were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons. They also pointed to the failure of Webster to exhaust administrative and internal remedies before filing the lawsuit, which they claimed should bar the action.

The Defendant raised the business necessity defense, stating that any actions affecting Webster’s employment were justified by legitimate business needs. They also argued that certain practices were job-related and that any actions taken by employees were discretionary. Lastly, the Defendant reserved the right to amend their defenses based on further discovery.

Jury Verdict

On September 30, 2024, the jury found in favor of the Defendant for claims one, two, four, five, and six. The jury found in favor of Weber on the third claim which was the Defendant’s failure to prevent discrimination and harassment. The jury awarded damages as follows:

  • Past economic loss: $16,000
  • Past non-economic loss: $34,000
  • Future non-economic loss: $125,000

The total damages came up to $175,000.

However, on October 11, 2024, Judge Anne Richardson passed a judgment on the verdict and in part, judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judgment vacated the verdict and the corresponding damages for claim three. Therefore, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any damages, and the judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant.

Court Documents:

Available upon request