Favorable Trial Court Results:

Rava v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Bacardi USA, Inc., and Bear Valley Ski Co.

In July 2009, Partners John B. Golper and Eric C. Schwettmann and Senior Counsel John J. Manier, representing Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and Bacardi USA, Inc., defeated a motion for class certification in Rava v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et al. The plaintiff, a licensed attorney, sued under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act based on a ski resort’s “Ladies Day” event in 2003, at which adult women received free ski lift tickets but adult men did not. He sought to certify a class consisting of an estimated 995 men who paid for lift tickets on “Ladies Day”. Anheuser-Busch and Bacardi were sued for allegedly “aiding or inciting” the Unruh Act violation because they sponsored a “Ladies Day” concert at the ski resort, although they had nothing to do with the resort’s giveaway of free lift tickets to women. Because there is a minimum penalty of $4,000 for each violation of the Unruh Act, class certification could have resulted in aggregate liability of $4 million or more. However, the court found a class action would not be superior to alternative means of resolving the dispute, such as individual small claims lawsuits.

Powell v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

In June 2009, Partner John B. Golper and Senior Counsel Elsa Bañuelos and John J. Manier won a motion to compel arbitration on behalf of Anheuser-Busch, Inc. in Powell v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. The court found that arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims, including those for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, was required by the collective bargaining agreement between Anheuser-Busch and the plaintiff’s union. This was one of the first cases in the nation in which a federal court granted a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett. That case held that employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement must arbitrate statutory employment discrimination claims if the agreement “clearly and unmistakably” requires as such.

Bujko v. Los Angeles Unified School District, etc.

In April 2009, Partners John Golper and Eric Schwettmann received a defense verdict in Bujko v. Los Angeles Unified School District, etc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. EC 044 839). The plaintiff claimed he was subjected to whistleblower retaliation under the California Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities Act (California Education Code § 44110 et. seq) after he reported that a female school Vice Principal walked through the boy’s locker room while the football team was allegedly getting dressed. After an 11 day trial, the jury deliberated for three days and found that the plaintiff’s report was not made honestly and in good faith and therefore was not a protected disclosure under the law. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Los Angeles Unified School District, the school principal, and the school vice principal.

Blackwell v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

In December 2008, Partner John B. Golper and Senior Counsel John J. Manier won a motion to compel arbitration on behalf of Anheuser-Busch, Inc. in Blackwell v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. The plaintiff claimed he was denied reasonable accommodation and terminated because of his disability and age. The Los Angeles County Superior Court found that the plaintiff must arbitrate all of his claims under Anheuser-Busch’s Dispute Resolution Program (DRP). It rejected the plaintiff’s claim that he never read a copy of the DRP and that he might not have received a copy because his ex-wife allegedly hid mail from him. The court stayed the plaintiff’s lawsuit pending the completion of arbitration proceedings.

Pizarro v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., etc.

In December 2008, Partners John Golper and Eric Schwettmann and Senior Counsel John Manier obtained summary judgment in Pizarro v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., etc. (Los Angeles Superior Court case no. JCCP 4505). The plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to age discrimination under the California Unruh Act on “Customer Appreciation Day” at Bear Valley Mountain Ski Resort when she was forced to purchase a ski lift ticket and adults over the age of 21 were not. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and Bacardi U.S.A., Inc. were alleged to have “aided or incited” this promotion. The court found that the undisputed material facts established that the promotion was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory factors and therefore was not a violation of law.

Saenz v. Backbone Communications, Inc.

In September 2008 Linda Miller Savitt received a defense verdict in Saenz v. Backbone Communications, Inc. The plaintiff claimed she had been terminated as a result of using the “kin care” statute, Labor Code § 203, which provides that an employee may use one-half of their sick time for family related incidents. After a 4 day trial the jury deliberated for 3 hours and returned a verdict in favor of the defendant that Backbone Communications had not wrongfully terminated the plaintiff.

Sanders v. Sempra Energy

Partner Linda Miller Savitt received a defense arbitration award in September 2008 in the case Lowell Sanders v. Sempra Energy Corporation. Mr. Sanders had been terminated in 2005 and claimed he had been a “whistleblower” on safety issues. The court found that he was not terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing and that there had been no safety violations committed by Sempra.

Vellon v. DWP verdict

"On July 29, 2008 , Partner Linda Miller Savitt and Associate Philip Reznik obtained a defense verdict in Duamel Vellon vs. City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power (Los Angeles Superior Court case no. BC 343494). The case involved a former high-level manager who claimed that he had been terminated based on his race and nationality and in retaliation for making complaints about discrimination. After 13 days of trial and five hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously rejected the plaintiff’s race discrimination claims and delivered an 11-1 defense verdict on his retaliation claims. Prior to trial, the Court granted a defense motion for summary adjudication of additional claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court also granted a defense motion to require the plaintiff -- who lives outside of California -- defendant’s to post a $110,000 bond before pursuing his claims in a California court. The costs will be recovered from these funds."

Krell v. U.C. Regents

On April 24, 2008, Linda Miller Savitt and Linda B. Hurevitz received a defense verdict in Heather Krell v. The Regents of the University of California (UCLA). The plaintiff, a former Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry claimed she had been subjected to sexual harassment by her mentor, a full professor, and that when she complained of the harassment she was retaliated against. She claimed she lost her research assignments and various other titles and was required to work an extraordinary amount of clinical hours seeing patients in order to earn her salary. After a three week trial, the jury deliberated for four hours and retuned a 12-0 verdict on all caused of action in favor of the defendants and against plaintiff.

McAlpin v. Facey Medical Group

In March 2008, partner Linda Miller Savitt and associate Gordon Kojima received a defense award in an arbitration involving Facey Medical Group. The plaintiff, Dr. McAlpin, contended she had been discriminated against on the basis of her race and gender when she was employed at Facey Medical Group as a head and neck surgeon.

Gabriela Kennedy v. Department of Water & Power

On November 30, 2007 partner Linda Miller Savitt received a defense verdict in the case of Gabriela Kennedy v. Department of Water & Power. Following a 4 week trial on a retaliation claim by an existing employee, Gabriela Kennedy, the jury found in favor of the defendant 10-2. This case had been litigated for approximately 4 years and had previously also involved a claim of gender discrimination, which was dismissed by the plaintiff following defendant?s filing of a motion for summary adjudication of this claim. Jury deliberations were only 3 hours.

Woods v. Hydraulics International

In October 2007 Linda Miller Savitt successfully defended the case of Woods v. Hydraulics International, which was a pregnancy discrimination claim. Following a 4 day trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant.

In October 2007 the firm received an award of attorneys fees in the amount of $108,000 in favor of its client for having to defend a frivolous harassment claim. The firm represented the Los Angeles County Superior Court and other court personnel.

Marisela Adams v. LAUSD

In May 2007 the firm received a defense verdict on behalf of its client, the Los Angeles Unified School District in the case of Marisela Adams v. LAUSD. The case involved a claim that plaintiff had been retaliated against and discriminated against on the basis of age. Following a 7 day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the School District. Partner Linda Miller Savitt was the trial attorney on that case.

Favorable Appellate Results:

Porche v. Pilot & Associates

In March 2009, Partner Jeffrey P. Fuchsman and Senior Counsel John J. Manier won a victory for Pilot Catastrophe Services, Inc. in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Porche v. Pilot & Associates. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit based on improper venue. The plaintiffs were a husband and wife who both worked as insurance adjusters for Pilot. Their lawsuit claimed that they were wrongfully denied overtime pay in violation of California and federal law. Although both plaintiffs live in Southern California, all of their work was done out of state. Their employment agreements stated that any claims must be brought in state court in Mobile County, Alabama, which is where Pilot is headquartered. The Court found that venue was not proper in the Central District of California because Pilot has insufficient contacts with the district, and because the plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from any activities by Pilot in the district.

Daboub v. Bell Gardens Bicycle Club

In October 2008, Partner Jeffrey P. Fuchsman and Senior Counsel John J. Manier won a victory for the Bicycle Club Casino in California Court of Appeal in Daboub v. Bell Gardens Bicycle Club, Inc. The court affirmed an order sustaining the Casino’s demurrer to the class action allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint, without leave to amend. The court found that the class action claims were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, based on an earlier favorable appellate decision in Lin v. Bell Gardens Bicycle Club, Inc. The plaintiff in Daboub worked as a card dealer at the Bicycle Club Casino in Bell Gardens. She claimed the Casino denied her and other dealers meal and rest periods, and that its “tip pool” violated various provisions of the Labor Code. The class of dealers the plaintiff sought to represent was the same class that was denied certification in Lin. The court ruled that the plaintiff was barred by the Lin decision from certifying the same class.

Massey v. Los Angeles Unified School District

On March 4, 2008, the court of appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Los Angeles Unified School District in Massey v. Los Angeles Unified School District (B 193196). A teacher sued the school district, claiming the school and a principal breached a settlement agreement by disclosing her below standard evaluation to prospective schools to which she applied for Assistant Principal positions, and asserting she also was defamed. On appeal, she challenged the summary adjudication on her breach of contract claim. The court of appeal found that summary judgment in favor of the school and principal was proper, concluding there was no evidence creating any triable issue of fact suggesting a breach of contract caused her any damages.

Aronsohn v. City of Los Angeles

On January 25, 2008, the court of appeal in Aronsohn v. City of Los Angeles (B190477), affirmed summary judgment for the City of Los Angeles against a City Attorney who claimed she was retaliated against for asserting wrongdoing by another City employee. Plaintiff claimed that the denial of a promotion and merit increase, her reassignment to a different department, and her treatment in the new department were all in retaliation for her complaint about the other City employee. The appellate court found the City had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its personnel decisions regarding plaintiff and she failed to raise triable issues of fact demonstrating pretext.

EEOC v. Robert L. Reeves & Associates

In December 2007, Partner Linda Miller Savitt and Senior Counsel John J. Manier won a victory in the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in EEOC v. Robert L. Reeves & Associates. The Court affirmed a unanimous jury verdict in favor of our client, Robert L. Reeves & Associates, an immigration law firm in Pasadena. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had sued the law firm, claiming that five of its employees were sexually harassed and one was discharged because she was pregnant. The jury rejected all six claims after deliberating for only four and one-half hours (an average of 40 minutes per claimant). The Court found that even if some evidentiary errors had been made, they were harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly supported the defense verdict.

Fung v. Childrens Hospital Los Angeles

On September 17, 2007, the court of appeal in Fung v. Childrens Hospital Los Angeles (B192340), affirmed summary judgment for Childrens Hospital against a researcher who claimed he was a hospital employee whose employment contract was breached and who was defrauded because he was not given the ongoing research support he wanted. The court of appeal agreed there was no triable issue of fact suggesting that the hospital had breached any contract or committed any fraud.