A restaurant worker sued under the FEHA for sexual harassment involving a manager and co-worker and included the business owners in her lawsuit. Although the restaurant's name had originally been included in her pre-litigation FEHA claim, the specific owners had not.
Before trial, the business owners' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing them from the case. The trial court ruled that the worker had not exhausted her administrative remedies against these owners before proceeding to trial on her lawsuit.
At trial, the worker won damages against both co-workers but appealed the summary judgment dismissing the owners from her suit. She argued that the owners were simply the alter-egos of the restaurant (which she had named in her original administrative claim with CFEHA) and, thus, should not have been dismissed in the subsequent civil action.
The appellate court, in this unpublished decision, agreed with the trial court's dismissal of the owners and denied the worker's appeal.
It first pointed out the requirement of exhausting administrative remedies:
"As our Supreme Court has explained, 'under the FEHA, the employee must exhaust the administrative remedy provided by the statute by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (Department)...' The primary purpose of this requirement is to facilitate the investigation and conciliation processes of the DFEH."
It then outlined the specific requirements of any such administrative claim,
as spelled out by Government Code Section 12960(b), which requires that a
DFEH charge:
"'shall state the name and address of the person [or] employer . . . alleged to have committed the unlawful practice complained of, and . . . shall set forth the particulars thereof '. . . . "
The Court ruled that an alter ego argument was reserved for situations where an injustice would otherwise occur during the administrative procedure process.
Reviewing the facts of the case, it found that there was no showing the worker was unaware of who the owners were when she filed her original FEHA claim and, thus, she could have easily included them at that point.
It said the evidence did NOT support the conclusion that:
"...the purported alter ego relationships precluded administrative proceedings that 'would encompass the entire sphere of the alleged discrimination.' ...
"Generally, the alter ego doctrine 'affords protection where some conduct amounting to bad faith makes it inequitable for the corporate owner to hide behind the corporate form.'"
The Court ruled there was no such injustice shown here.
The case is Rich v. Koi Restaurant.
To read the full opinion,
→
CLICK HERE.
