Jesus Lopez v. Canton Food Co., Inc.
Case Background
On March 24, 2022, Jesus Lopez filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Canton Food Co., Inc. alleging Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) violations. The case was heard in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County and Judges Randolph M. Hammock and Barbara M. Scheper presided over the lawsuit. [Case number: 22STCV10189]
Cause
Canton Food, a wholesale restaurant supply company, hired Jesus Lopez as a Cash Teller in December 2018. He effectively managed cash in the company’s vault.
On July 5, 2019, Lopez sought medical treatment for a toe injury that became a serious infection due to his diabetes. While hospitalized, he informed his managers about his condition and requested time off for the weekend.
Lopez underwent surgery to remove his infected toe on July 8. The next day, he called his supervisor, Sabrina Wah, to update her and request additional time off as advised by his doctor. Sabrina inquired about his return date, and Lopez mentioned his follow-up appointment on July 17.
After being discharged on July 11, Lopez informed Nancy he needed a few more days to recover. On July 15, Nancy texted him to reach out to General Manager Thomas Ma regarding his medical leave. When Lopez called Thomas, he received no response, so he visited the office to pick up his paycheck and discuss his situation, only to find out the check had been mailed. He encountered Sabrina, who pressured him to return to work.
On July 17, Lopez’s doctor recommended he stay off work until October 14. Despite this, Nancy continued to pressure him for a return. Lopez visited the office again and spoke with Thomas, who noted his cast and cane, but Sabrina insisted on a specific return date, disregarding medical advice.
Throughout his leave, Lopez updated Thomas via email. On September 20, Thomas acknowledged the doctor’s note but pressured Lopez for an earlier return. Feeling compelled, Lopez consulted his doctor, who confirmed he needed to remain off until October 14. After notifying Thomas, Lopez learned his employment had been terminated and his position filled. When he emailed Thomas to reapply after receiving medical clearance on April 20, 2020, he received no response.
Injury
Due to ongoing discrimination and retaliation, the Plaintiffs experienced significant economic loss and severe emotional distress. This treatment led to stress, anxiety, depression, and insomnia, among other emotional symptoms. Consequently, the Plaintiffs faced lasting impacts on their well-being and financial stability. They struggled to cope with the emotional turmoil caused by these negative experiences.
Damages
As a direct result of the Defendants’ intentional harassment, the Plaintiff sustained significant losses in earnings and employment benefits. This harassment caused the Plaintiff to experience ongoing humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and injury to reputation. Additionally, the Plaintiff incurred medical and therapeutic expenses, all contributing to his damages.
The Defendants acted with malice and a conscious disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights. Their actions were intended to cause harm or constituted despicable conduct. This behavior subjected the Plaintiff to undue hardship, violating his right to be free from threats, intimidation, or coercion. Such actions amounted to malice, oppression, or fraud under Civil Code §3294, making the Plaintiff eligible for punitive damages to hold the Defendants accountable.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff incurred ongoing legal expenses and attorney fees due to the Defendants’ misconduct. He sought to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs, including expert fees, as supported by Government Code section 12965(b). Under Government Code §12956(b), the Plaintiff requested a fair award of attorney fees and costs, as outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
- Plaintiff(s): Jesus Lopez
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Allison Norder | Sheryl L. Marx
- Experts for Plaintiff(s): Bennett Williamson, Ph.D. | Glennis Siverson
- Defendant(s): Canton Food Co., Inc.
- Counsel for Defendant(s): Citadelle Priagula | Kristine Kwong | Therese Maucere | Anita Lee | Woody Koch-Wain | Juan Torres
- Experts for Defendant(s): Cheri Adrian, Ph.D. | Christopher Boucher
Claims
Disability Discrimination in Violation of the FEHA
The Defendants’ actions violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), specifically Government Code section 12900, et seq. They engaged in unlawful employment practices based on the Plaintiff’s actual or perceived disability by:
a. Terminating, barring, refusing to transfer, or otherwise discriminating against the Plaintiff due to his disability, in violation of Government Code section 12940(a);
b. Harassing the Plaintiff or creating a hostile work environment related to his disability, in violation of Government Code section 12940(j);
c. Failing to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment based on his disability, in violation of Government Code section 12940(k);
d. Retaliating against Plaintiff for asserting his rights under FEHA or opposing Defendants’ failure to provide those rights, in violation of Government Code section 12940(h).
Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the FEHA
The Plaintiff was willing and able to perform his job duties with reasonable accommodations for his disability. At no time would these accommodations have endangered his or others’ health or safety. Accommodating the Plaintiff’s disability would not have imposed undue hardship on the Defendants. However, Defendant failed to accommodate him and did not engage in the interactive process.
Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA
After the Plaintiff reported his disability, Defendants were obligated to engage in the interactive process but consistently failed to do so.
Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA
The Defendants’ decisions not to retain, transfer, or employ the Plaintiff were motivated, in whole or in part, by his actual or perceived disability and age.
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
As a direct result of the Defendants’ actions, the Plaintiff suffered financial losses, including lost salary and benefits, along with damage to his professional reputation. These losses will be proven at trial.
Defense
Defendant argued that it could not keep the Plaintiff’s position open. It needed a vault teller to count cash for the armed guards quickly. Additionally, Defendant claimed that other employees complained about covering Plaintiff’s duties during his medical leave.
Defendant stated it had considered providing accommodations for Plaintiff. However, it decided against this because the Plaintiff’s doctor’s note did not specify when his leave would end. Furthermore, Defendant denied that Plaintiff made any other requests for accommodations.
Expert Testimony
The Plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Bennett Williamson, a psychologist, provided insights into the psychological impact of the alleged discrimination on the Plaintiff. Conversely, the Defendant’s medical expert, Dr. Cheri Adrian, also a psychologist, presented a differing perspective on the psychological effects related to the case.
On the technical side, the Plaintiff’s expert, Glennis Siverson, brought valuable expertise from the human resources field, highlighting potential HR violations. In response, the Defendant’s technical expert, Christopher Boucher, offered an alternative viewpoint grounded in human resources practices, which contributed to the overall discussion on the adequacy of the Defendant’s actions and policies.
Jury Verdict
- Economic Damages: $119,000
- Non-Economic Damages: $120,000
Court Documents:
Available upon request
Leave A Comment