Severino Dela Rosa vs. Tutor-Saliba Corporation, et al.

Case Background

On May 24, 2024, Severino Dela Rosa filed an employment lawsuit against Defendants Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor-Saliba Corporation, alleging wrongful termination, retaliation, and violation of FEHA. The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judge Upinder S. Kalra presided over this case. [Case number: 22STCV17164]

Cause

Severino Dela Rosa, referred to as “Plaintiff,” resided in Los Angeles County. The entities involved in this case, Tutor Perini Corporation, Tutor-Saliba Corporation, Tutor-Saliba Managed Joint Ventures, and Does 1 to 50, were collectively known as “Defendants.” Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Senior Estimator from approximately April 1995 until September 8, 2021.

Throughout this period, Plaintiff successfully performed all essential job duties. Plaintiff believed he maintained good standing with Defendants, as no valid complaints had been lodged against him. He diligently completed all assigned tasks and met performance expectations.

In April 2021, Defendants’ CEO, Ronald N. Tutor, inquired about Plaintiff’s retirement plans, suggesting an interest in facilitating a smooth transition. Plaintiff chose not to retire at that time.

However, on September 8, 2021, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment. At the time of his dismissal, Plaintiff was over 40 years old, having been born in 1938. Defendants were aware of his age, which was evident.

Plaintiff believed that his age and decision to remain employed were significant factors in Defendants’ actions. He suspected that Defendants aimed to replace him with a younger, less expensive employee. Furthermore, Defendants failed to take appropriate measures to prevent unlawful actions in the workplace. Consequently, Plaintiff asserted that there were no valid reasons for his termination.

Damages

The conduct of Defendants caused Plaintiff to experience economic harm. This included lost earnings and other financial impacts. Defendants’ actions also led to psychological harm and emotional distress for Plaintiff.

Moreover, Plaintiff sought punitive damages. Defendants’ behavior fell under the definitions of malice, fraud, or oppression as outlined in Civil Code section 3294. Thus, Plaintiff was entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Severino Dela Rosa
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): N. Nick Ebrahimian | Alan Wilcox
  • Defendant(s): Tutor Perini Corporation | Tutor-Saliba Corporation | Tutor-Saliba Managed Joint Ventures | Does 1 to 50
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Robert Nida | Matthew J. Luce | Jacqueline Kim

Claims

First Cause of Action: Discrimination Based on Age
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
Plaintiff, who was over 40 years old at the time of the adverse employment actions, filed against Defendants.

Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff through their managing agents. They subjected Plaintiff to adverse employment actions and negative treatment. Plaintiff’s age significantly motivated the Defendants’ decisions.

Second Cause of Action: Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA
Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by wrongfully terminating him. They also took other adverse actions, some of which Plaintiff was not yet aware of or recognized as significant.

Defendants’ unlawful conduct played a substantial role in causing harm to Plaintiff.

Third Cause of Action: Failure to Prevent Conduct Prohibited by the FEHA
(Govt. Code § 12940, et seq.)
During his employment, Plaintiff faced unlawful conduct prohibited by the FEHA. Defendants did not take reasonable steps to prevent this misconduct.

Fourth Cause of Action: Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff endured the unlawful conduct previously described. Throughout this period, Plaintiff performed his job competently and satisfactorily.

Defense

The Defendant in response, denied allegations of wrongful termination, retaliation, and age discrimination. They assumed affirmative defenses and argued comparative fault and failure to mitigate damages.

Jury Verdict

On May 30, 2024, the jury delivered a verdict favoring the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. This decision addressed the two causes of action: age discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

On June 24, 2024, Hon. Upinder S. Kalra passed a judgment consistent with the verdict.

Court Documents:

Available upon request