The law firm of Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, LLP, recently secured a summary judgment in a FEHA Sexual Harassment/Assault/False Imprisonment case. A summary of the case is set forth below.

© Copyrighted 2008 by Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, LLP. All rights reserved.

Mark Baker v. Navfam Inc. dba Grease Monkey, William J. Navigato III (RIC446242)

Hon. Dallas S. Holmes

Riverside Superior

TOPIC: Employment Law

SUB TOPIC: FEHA

FURTHER DESCRIPTION: Negligence

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Defense

ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff - Geoffrey H. Hopper, Charles P. Boylston (Geoffrey H. Hopper & Associates, Inc., Redlands).

Defendant - Robert W. Conti, Lester F. Aponte (Goldman, Magdalin & Krikes, LLP, North Hollywood).

FACTS: Plaintiff Mark Baker, age 18 at the time, sued his former employer, Navfam Inc. dba Grease Monkey, William Navigato, the company's president, and several co-employees, based on two incidents of assault and battery that occurred on what would have been his next-to-last day of work before leaving to a new job. Grease Monkey is a franchise specializing in quick auto lubrication services.

On Jan. 29, 2006, a co-employee asked the plaintiff to come down into the lube pit. The co-employees stripped the plaintiff down to his boxers, tossing his clothes into his nearby truck. The plaintiff had to run out in his boxers to retrieve his clothes.

The second incident involved the co-employees dragging him, again, into the lube pit, putting plaintiff into a neck hold, and then stripping him of his clothing save his underwear, which was pulled down to his knees. The co-employees sprayed him with water, and taped his ankles and wrists together. Plaintiff contended that the second incident lasted about 20 minutes, the defendants contended it lasted a much shorter time. Eventually, he was cut free.

The plaintiff's mother learned about these two incidents, and she and her son filed a police report the next day. In addition, the plaintiff's mother contacted the employer and advised the manager as to what had happened the day before. Defendant alleged the co-employees were all fired within a few days after the management learned of what had happened.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: The plaintiff contended that the co-employees were liable for sexual harassment and discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, intentional assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision, false imprisonment, violation of privacy rights pursuant to Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, constructive wrongful termination in violation of public policy, alter ego liability and punitive damages.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants Navfam and Navigato contended that the male-on-male horseplay that occurred did not constitute sexual harassment or discrimination, that all of plaintiff's common law tort claims were preempted by the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provisions; that plaintiff could not prove the element of employer knowledge or permission of intolerable working conditions required for a constructive termination claim; that the doctrine of respondeat superior did not apply because the co-employees were neither supervisors or managers and that they acted outside the scope of their employment; and that the employer could not be held liable for punitive damages because none of the employees were officers, directors or managing agents, as required by statute.

The defendants also contended that the false imprisonment claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. 

INJURIES: The plaintiff alleged suffering bruises, raspberries and a sore esophagus, as well as severe emotional distress. The plaintiff was never treated by any medical professional with regard to either his alleged physical or emotional damages.

SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS: A mediation was held before Patricia Barrett, Esq. of IVAMS. The plaintiff demanded $1.7 million; the employer defendants offered $5,000. 

RESULT: The court granted the employer defendants' summary judgment in its entirety.

OTHER INFORMATION: The plaintiff dismissed all but one of the individual co-employees. That remaining employee through his counsel filed for summary judgment as well. The court granted summary adjudication as to the FEHA violations, as well as the negligence claims. The court denied the employee's motion with regard to the assault and battery claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and the privacy claim. The plaintiff also filed a motion for summary adjudication as to certain causes of action. That motion was summarily denied as plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of damages, an essential element as to each of his causes of action.