Case Background

Berta Cifuentes had worked at the Costco warehouse in Goleta, California, for over two decades, earning a reputation as a dependable and ethical employee. She had received multiple performance accolades and was known for mentoring others and upholding Costco’s core values. But her longstanding career came to a sudden halt in late 2022 when Costco terminated her over a disputed timecard entry.

Cifuentes, who suffered from depression and anxiety, had requested accommodations to help her manage symptoms that interfered with early morning shifts. Despite repeated discussions with management and a record of approved leaves, she claimed her requests had been brushed aside. The company cited a “falsification of company records” for her firing, a claim stemming from her correction of a minor timekeeping discrepancy involving less than a second.

What Set Things in Motion

Cifuentes filed suit alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, failure to engage in the interactive process, and wrongful termination. She claimed Costco had used the pretext of a timekeeping error to punish her for ongoing disability-related attendance issues and for seeking adjustments to her schedule.

The Personal Impact

The termination deeply affected Cifuentes, both emotionally and financially. After years of being a respected employee, she believed she had been pushed out unfairly for conditions beyond her control. The alleged denial of accommodations for her mental health condition and the abrupt end to her career had compounded her stress and worsened her condition.

What Was at Stake

Cifuentes sought damages for emotional distress, lost wages, and damage to her professional reputation. Her case raised questions about how employers manage employees with disabilities, and whether procedural technicalities like a .01-second clock-in discrepancy could lawfully justify firing a long-serving worker.

Inside the Courtroom

During the trial, Cifuentes’s attorneys presented extensive documentation, surveillance footage, and testimony that challenged the legitimacy of Costco’s claim that she had falsified her time entry. Expert witness Maureen Clark, a veteran in HR practices, testified that Costco had failed to follow its own policies and instead used the Exception Log entry as a cover for a pre-planned termination.

Costco, in turn, argued that Cifuentes had been terminated for legitimate reasons, including repeated tardiness and a violation of company policy. It claimed that her disability had not been ignored and that she had never formally requested accommodations.

Key Arguments and Proceedings:

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Berta Cifuentes

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Edward Lowenschuss

·       Expert for Plaintiff(s): Maureen Clark| Barbara C. Luna

Defendant(s): Costco Wholesale Corporation (a Washington Corporation)

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Jessica C. Koenig

Argument by the Counsels

Cifuentes’s counsel emphasised that the timekeeping dispute had been a smokescreen. Surveillance footage had shown her attempting to clock in within the grace period, and Costco’s managers admitted they had reviewed the footage but fired her anyway. Defense counsel maintained she violated policy and pointed to her tardiness record and previous write-ups.

Claims of the lawsuit

Disability Discrimination

Cifuentes claimed Costco fired her because of her depression and anxiety, conditions the company knew about but did not accommodate.

Retaliation
She argued that her attempts to correct a clock-in error and advocate for accommodations had been met with discipline and ultimately termination.

Failure to Accommodate

Cifuentes testified she had repeatedly asked for a later shift or flexible scheduling and had been denied, despite a documented history of FMLA leave and known medical needs.

Failure to Engage in Interactive Process

Costco allegedly ignored its duty to communicate with her about possible accommodations.

Wrongful Termination

Cifuentes believed her firing violated California public policy and her rights under FEHA.

Defense Arguments

Costco denied any wrongdoing, arguing that Cifuentes had a pattern of tardiness and performance issues. The company claimed she had never submitted a formal accommodation request and that her firing had been based on just cause: misrepresenting her clock-in time. It further insisted that her disability had not been a factor in its decision-making.

Jury Verdict

The jury sided with Costco on all claims. It found in favour of the Defendant on disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination, and breach of contract. Despite compelling evidence and expert analysis, jurors rejected Cifuentes’s arguments and awarded no damages.

Court Documents

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com