Craig Knowles v. Hoseley Corporation A Corporation Et Al

Parties Involved

  • Plaintiff: Craig Knowles
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Kenneth Charles Absalom | Craig Knowles (pro se)
  • Defendant: Duenas Mario | Hoseley Corporation | Hoseley Rusty | Does 1 through 20
    • Counsel for Defendant: Michael A Laurenson

Verdict Information

  • Verdict date: April 02, 2024
  • Total damages awarded to the Plaintiff: $0.00

About the Case


Craig Knowles, an employee of Hoseley Corporation, headquartered in San Francisco, California, suffered from a physical disability affecting his ability to work. However, this disability did not prevent him from performing his job’s essential functions. Despite his ability to work, Hoseley terminated Knowles’ employment in December 2017.

Knowles had been a diligent employee, consistently receiving positive performance evaluations throughout his tenure. On December 16, 2017, while at work, he was assaulted by a fellow employee, resulting in significant back injuries. Knowles promptly notified Hoseley management of the incident and took time off to recuperate. However, when he mentioned filing a workers’ compensation claim, his manager reacted angrily, showing displeasure at Knowles’ intention to seek compensation.

Upon his return to work, Knowles was instructed by his manager to apologize to the coworker who assaulted him. Despite expressing concerns about his safety and the unfairness of apologizing when he was not at fault, Knowles was pressured to comply.

Despite being capable of performing his job’s essential duties with reasonable accommodations, Hoseley failed to engage in an interactive process to determine what accommodations were necessary. Consequently, Knowles was terminated based on his disability and in retaliation for pursuing compensation for his injuries through the workers’ compensation system.

Knowles filed a lawsuit citing disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, failure to engage in the interactive process under the California Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), and violation of public policy


Through these actions and omissions, the Defendant allegedly discriminated against the Plaintiff, violating California Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA) and the public policy. As a direct and foreseeable result, the Defendant caused the Plaintiff to sustain and continue to sustain economic damages, including lost wages, pension, and medical and other employment benefits, in an amount to be proven at trial. Furthermore, the Defendant’s actions caused the Plaintiff to suffer and continue to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, aggravation, and emotional distress, all contributing to general damages to be determined at trial.

The Defendant acted oppressively and maliciously, with the wrongful intention of harming the Plaintiff and with reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights.


The Plaintiff sought relief, requesting economic, general, compensatory, special, and punitive damages. Additionally, Knowles asked for the costs of the suit and attorney’s fees per Govt. Code Section 12965(b), along with interest on all awarded sums at the maximum allowable rate. The Plaintiff also sought injunctive and equitable relief, including an order for the Defendant to reinstate the Plaintiff to active employment and to take measures to prevent future discrimination against the Plaintiff or other employees. Finally, Knowles requested any other relief the Court deemed just and proper.

Jury Verdict

On April 2, 2024 a California jury found that the Defendant, Hoseley Corporation had not discharged Knowles. Accordingly, Craig Knowles was not awarded any damages.

Court Documents:

Available upon request