Leny Cepeda, et al. vs. Sweet Fish Sushi Bar, Inc., a California Corporation

Case Background

Former employees of Sweet Fish Sushi Bar, Inc., Leny Cepeda, Lizette Coronado, and Marcel Tillman filed a wrongful termination lawsuit alleging employment discrimination and retaliation and violations of California labor and wage laws.  The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles. Judges Tiana J. Murillo, Michelle C. Kim, Jill Feeney, Curtis A. Kin, Robert S. Draper, and Douglas W. Stern [Case number: 19STCV19479]

Cause

Leny Cepeda, Lizette Coronado, and Marcel Tillman resided in Los Angeles, California, during their employment at Sweet Fish Sushi Bar, Inc., a California corporation. Coronado began working as a server in April 2016 and was later promoted to a junior management role. Cepeda started as a busboy in April 2017 and was also promoted to a junior management position within a month. Tillman joined in June 2017 as a server. All three consistently performed their duties well.

During Cepeda’s employment, he earned $10 per hour initially, which increased to $15 per hour in July 2017. He worked full-time but was denied meal and rest breaks required by law. In June 2017, the restaurant’s owner, Alfred Watson, expressed a discriminatory preference for hiring young Asian women, objecting to Tillman’s employment. Despite Cepeda’s defense of Tillman, Watson insisted on his removal.

In June 2017, Tillman was abruptly terminated without explanation after being told to attend a meeting. Coronado confronted Watson and another owner, protesting the unfair termination and highlighting Watson’s discriminatory remarks. Shortly after, Coronado faced retaliation, including reduced hours, suspension without pay, and eventual resignation in December 2017.

Cepeda was terminated in January 2018, purportedly due to a health inspection issue, despite not being responsible. He was never paid his outstanding wages. The Plaintiffs believe Sweet Fish engaged in discriminatory practices based on race, ancestry, and gender, as well as retaliation for opposing unlawful conduct. These actions were allegedly either authorized or overlooked by the company’s leadership, reflecting its systemic discriminatory policies.

Damages

The Defendants’ actions caused the plaintiffs to endure significant harm, including severe emotional distress, anxiety, and depression. They also experienced physical symptoms such as headaches and tension. As a result, the plaintiffs faced expenses for medical care, psychological counseling, and treatment. Additionally, they lost wages, benefits, and other financial opportunities both in the past and anticipated for the future.

The Plaintiffs sought compensation for these losses, including damages for emotional and mental suffering that exceeded the court’s jurisdictional minimum. They argued that the managerial employees acted intentionally, cruelly, and with conscious disregard for their rights. These deliberate actions aimed to cause harm and damage. Consequently, the plaintiffs requested punitive damages against the defendants in amounts exceeding the jurisdictional minimum.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Leny Cepeda | Lizette Coronado | Marcel Tillman
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Steven Berkowitz | Daniel J. Friedman
  • Defendant(s): Sweet Fish Sushi Bar, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s):  David P. Beitchman | Paul Tokar

Claims

The Plaintiffs, Cepeda, Coronado, and Tillman, claimed that Sweet Fish violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). They argued that the company discriminated against them based on race, ancestry, and gender. Despite their strong job performance, they faced demotions, terminations, and a hostile work environment, which they believed were driven by discriminatory motives.

The Plaintiffs also asserted retaliation under FEHA, claiming that Sweet Fish punished them for reporting discrimination. Cepeda and Tillman were terminated, while Coronado faced demotion. The Plaintiffs argued that their actions opposing discrimination led directly to these adverse outcomes.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs contended that Sweet Fish failed to prevent discrimination and retaliation, as required by FEHA. They claimed that the company’s negligence allowed such practices to continue, causing significant harm.

Cepeda and Tillman alleged wrongful termination in violation of California public policy. They believed their terminations were based on discriminatory and retaliatory reasons tied to their association with protected classes and their involvement in protected activities.

Coronado claimed retaliation under California Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 1102.6 for reporting discriminatory practices. She argued that her demotion resulted from her complaint, violating laws that protect whistleblowers.

The Plaintiffs each sought a judicial declaration to confirm their claims of discrimination and retaliation. Cepeda believed his termination was due to his association with a protected class and his opposition to discrimination. Coronado claimed her demotion was based on ancestry and national origin, while Tillman argued his race and gender led to wrongful termination.

Cepeda also alleged that Sweet Fish violated wage laws by failing to compensate him for missed breaks. From April 2017 to January 2018, he claimed he was denied proper breaks over 200 times, resulting in unpaid wages exceeding $5,500.

Finally, the Plaintiffs claimed Sweet Fish failed to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks. Cepeda detailed working over five hours without a 30-minute meal break or 10-minute rest period, in violation of labor laws. He also alleged that the company failed to provide accurate wage statements, causing financial harm and resulting in damages and penalties exceeding $21,000.

Defense

Defendant Sweet Fish Sushi Bar, Inc. denied all allegations in the complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs were at-will employees or independent contractors and that the alleged conduct did not constitute discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination. The Defendant claimed the work environment was not discriminatory, and the wage-related claims were unfounded.

Additional defenses included failure to exhaust administrative remedies, workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy, and the argument that Plaintiffs’ negligence and unclean hands barred recovery. The Defendant also maintained that its practices were lawful, reasonable, and consented to by Plaintiffs, with any income from other employment to be deducted from recovery.

Jury Verdict

On May 15, 2024, the jury found that Sweet Fish Sushi Bar, Inc. was the employer of the Plaintiffs Leny Cepeda, Lizette Coronado, and Marcel Tillman and each one of them was subjected to adverse employment actions. However, the jury did not find race, color, or protected activity to be substantial motivating factors for these actions against Cepeda, Coronado, or Tillman. It also found that Sweet Fish failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and retaliation, contributing to the harm suffered by Plaintiffs Cepeda and Coronado, but not Tillman.

Regarding Lizette Coronado, the jury determined that she disclosed to a person with authority that Sweet Fish had discriminated against another individual. Coronado had reasonable cause to believe that the disclosure indicated a violation of state/federal statute, and as a result, Sweet Fish subjected her to an adverse employment action.

The jury found that Coronado’s communication was a contributing factor to the adverse action, and Sweet Fish’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing her harm. Furthermore, the jury ruled that Sweet Fish did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the adverse action for legitimate, independent reasons. Consequently, Coronado was awarded $15,000 for past noneconomic losses.

The jury also found that Sweet Fish failed to comply with legal requirements to allow the Plaintiffs to inspect and receive copies of their personnel and payroll records within 30 days of their requests. The jury found that Sweet Fish acted with malice, oppression, or fraud against Cepeda and Coronado, but not against Tillman. Damages were awarded for Cepeda and Coronado’s past noneconomic losses, with no future noneconomic loss granted.

On May 16, 2024, the jury in the special verdict phase II form, awarded punitive damages of $5,000.00 against Sweet Fish Sushi Bar, Inc. for both Leny Cepeda and Lizette Coronado.

The total damages awarded to each Plaintiff were as follows:

  • Leny Cepeda’s Damages:
    • Past noneconomic loss: $20,000.00
    • Punitive damages: $5,000.00
    • Failure to permit inspection of personnel & payroll records: $1,500.00
    • Total: $26,500.00
  • Lizette Coronado’s Damages:
    • Past noneconomic loss: $15,000.00
    • Punitive damages: $5,000.00
    • Failure to permit inspection of personnel & payroll records: $1,500.00
    • Total: $21,500.00
  • Marcel Tillman’s Damages:
    • Failure to permit inspection of personnel & payroll records: $1,500.00
    • Total: $1,500.00

The verdict totaled $49,500 against Sweet Fish Sushi Bar, Inc.

Court Documents:

Documents are available for purchase upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com