Wrongful Termination Case: Age and Race Discrimination Allegations Against Velvet Apparel, LLC Dismissed

Plaintiff Rachael Sungwon Yun lived in California and worked as a pattern maker for Defendant Velvet Apparel, LLC (“Velvet”) from February 15 to June 24, 2022. Velvet was a Delaware-based limited liability company, registered in California in 2011 and Defendant Henry Hirschowitz was the sole manager. Rachael received an annual salary of $90,000 and reported to Hirschowitz during her employment.

Born in July 1963 in South Korea, Rachael immigrated to the United States at age 37. As an Asian woman with limited English proficiency, she faced challenges related to racial and gender discrimination. Despite these obstacles, she pursued her dream of becoming a pattern maker, completing vocational training at Dessin Design College in Los Angeles. After her education, she worked for several garment manufacturers, including Velvet.

Initially, Rachael was hired under a 90-day probation period. During this time, she worked over eight hours daily without receiving overtime pay, despite being a non-exempt employee. She received no warnings regarding her performance and successfully completed the probation on May 15, 2022, becoming a regular employee.

Rachael collaborated closely with designer Andrew Hickman, producing over 40 patterns without any negative feedback. Meanwhile, the company hired a younger part-time pattern maker named Anja. Rachael later learned that Anja replaced her and had less experience.

On June 24, 2022, Hirschowitz terminated Rachael, claiming numerous complaints about her work. Rachael believed this reasoning was a pretext for discrimination based on race, national origin, and age. She exhausted all administrative remedies under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) before filing her lawsuit, receiving a “Right-To-Sue” letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing on June 29, 2022.

As a direct result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff suffered both general and special damages. The total amount for these damages would be determined at trial, but it exceeded $500,000. Plaintiff sought compensation to be made whole.

By engaging in the alleged misconduct, Defendants acted with oppression, willfulness, and malice. They showed a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights and intended to cause harm. Because of this behavior, Defendants owed the Plaintiff punitive or exemplary damages under Section 3294 of the California Civil Code.

First Cause of Action: Discrimination Based on Race and National Origin (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a))
Plaintiff’s employment with Velvet would not have ended but for her Korean descent and her native language being Korean.

Second Cause of Action: Discrimination Based on Age (Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a))
Plaintiff’s employment with Velvet would not have been terminated but for her being over forty (40) years old.

Third Cause of Action: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
During her time at Velvet, Plaintiff received no negative feedback or complaints from co-workers about her performance. Any issues mentioned by Hirschowitz were based on what he claimed to have heard from others at the time of her termination.

Plaintiff’s employment would not have been terminated but for her Korean descent and native language. Terminating her based on these factors violated public policy under Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a). This wrongful discharge aimed to replace her with a white employee who earned less.

Fourth Cause of Action: Unfair Business Practice in Violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
Ending Plaintiff’s employment due to her race, national origin, or age constituted an unfair business practice under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Defendants’ actions violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and California public policy.

Defendants claimed that when Plaintiff was first interviewed and hired, she was Korean. Her employment ended within four to five months. If Defendants had engaged in discriminatory behavior, they would have refused to interview her due to her Korean heritage or denied her a job for the same reason. They did not hire and train Plaintiff, a Korean, only to terminate her shortly after.

Plaintiff was not discriminated against based on her age as a 59-year-old pattern maker. At the time of her departure, Velvet employed six pattern makers, four of whom were older than Plaintiff. All six pattern makers were over the age of 40, and all four older employees were of Asian descent. Velvet maintained a multicultural workforce. At the time Plaintiff left, employees included American, Cambodian, Chinese, Colombian, Filipino, Guatemalan, Honduran, Japanese, Korean, Mexican, Salvadoran, South African, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and those from multicultural families. Velvet did not discriminate against employees based on race or national origin.

The position vacated when Plaintiff was terminated was not filled immediately. After a broad advertising campaign, Velvet selected a Vietnamese female for the role. She was around the same age as Plaintiff and received a higher salary than Plaintiff had earned.

Defendant Henry Hirschowitz was not a member of Velvet and had not served as “the sole member, manager, and officer of Velvet since January 2011” as alleged in the complaint.

This action went to trial on August 27, 2024, in Department 31 of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The Honorable Kerry Bensinger presided over the trial. On September 4, 2024, the twelve-person jury delivered a defense verdict. The jury concluded that Plaintiff’s national origin, race, and age were not substantial factors in her termination.

On October 1, 2024, a judgment consistent with the verdict was entered by Hon. Kerry Bensinger