Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 20STCV38299, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

This matter came on for trial on May 1, 16, 17 and 23, 2023, in Department 50 of the above-entitled Court before the Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet, sitting without a jury. The Court, having considered the evidence and read the arguments of counsel, issues this tentative and proposed Statement of Decision. This tentative and proposed Statement of Decision will become the Statement of Decision unless, within 15 days hereafter, a party serves and files objections to the proposed Statement of Decision.

First, Martinez Itzel Martinez (hereinafter referred to as “Martinez”) is deaf.

Second, GT Events Management, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “GT”) is a California corporation.

Third, Martinez was hired by GT to work a three-day event on August 16, 17 and 18, 2019.

Six, Martinez was hired as a Brand Ambassador for a convention tradition trade show, known as “Wellness Your Way Festival.”

Eight, during all relevant times, Shelby Freeman and Monique Alvarez were employees of GT.

During the trial, the parties also stipulated that being deaf is a disability. (Id., at pp. 44:6-9.) During the trial, Becky Glass, one of the owners of GT, testified that GT had six employees in August 2019. (Id., at pp. 17:14–24.) Thus, for the relevant time period, GT does not dispute that it was a covered employer subject to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA.)

Martinez seeks damages for her remaining causes of action for Disability Discrimination, Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process, Failure to Accommodate, Failure to Prevent Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. More specifically, she seeks past and future lost earnings in the amount of $16,200, and noneconomic general damages in the amount of $58,800.

GT denies that Martinez has proven any of the remaining causes of action and, even if she had, she was hired only for a three-day job with no promise of additional work; she did not prove that there was additional work for which she qualified or that she would have accepted; and her failure to seek medical attention for alleged mental anguish undermines her emotional distress claims.

The elements of a disability discrimination claim are as follows: (1) GT was an employer [stipulated fact]; (2) Martinez was an employee of GT [stipulated fact]; (3) GT knew that Martinez had a physical condition that limited performance of major life activities; (4) Martinez was able to perform the essential job duties with or without reasonable accommodation; (5) GT discharged Martinez [stipulated fact]; (6) Martinez’ physical condition was a motivating reason for the discharge; (7) Martinez was harmed; and (8) GT’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Martinez’ harm. (CACI 2540.)

1) GT knew Martinez had a physical condition that limited a major life activity

At the time GT replaced Martinez, GT was aware that Martinez was deaf, a physical condition that limits a major life activity. On August 16, 2019 (the day before termination), Ms. Freeman received a call from GT’s client Advantage indicating that Martinez was not speaking. The same day, Ms. Freeman received a text from Martinez stating: “I am deaf.” Ms. Freeman texted her superior, Ms. Alvarez, and referred to Martinez’s condition as a “disability.” Ms. Freeman testified that the inability of Martinez to speak was a disability. (May 17, 2023 TT, pp. 31:8–10.) As noted above, at trial, GT stipulated that being deaf is a disability.

2) Martinez was able to perform the essential job duties with or without accommodation(s)

Martinez testified that she was able to perform the essential job duties at the Convention.

On her first day of work, Martinez performed all of her essential job duties. She dressed properly, greeted people, and she was warm, friendly, and courteous. (May 23 TT, p. 6:4-7:27.) Martinez was friendly with her facial expression and body language. She would waive hello and make sure that her movements were noticeably friendly in nature. She would then say hi and gesture to people to come over [to her booth.] She would then hand out samples to people, including Listerine and coupons for headache and allergy [medication]. (Ibid.) Martinez shared product features by demonstrating/gesturing how to use Listerine mouthwash. (Ibid.) She used her phone to type notes to communicate further when necessary. (Ibid.) She made sure that she was energetic, approachable, and had good vibes. (Id. at 7:28-8:18.) She even offered to help other Brand Ambassadors when they needed to take a break and agreed to switch booths with them when they asked her for it. (Ibid.)

GT contended that because of her disability, Martinez was unable to properly welcome Convention attendees and share product features. However, GT admitted that no one from GT observed Martinez’s job performance at the Convention.

Ms. Freeman said because of her disability, Martinez would not be able to greet people or share product features. But Ms. Freeman was not at the Convention. Ms. Freeman admitted that Advantage representative (Samantha Schanz) did not say anything about Martinez not being able to greet people. (May 17 TT, pp. 22:18-28.) Samantha Schanz only said that Martinez was not speaking. (Ibid.) Ms. Freeman received a phone call from Samantha Schanz with Advantage “toward the end of the event” on August 16, 2019 (May 17 TT, pp. 47:2-13). This was a two-minute call, during which the only comment Samantha Schanz made was that Martinez was not speaking. (Id., at pp. 22:18 – 23:6.) Exhibit 5, the document that described the role of the Brand Ambassador, did not specify speaking as a requirement. It said only that the Brand Ambassador would be assisting the brand team in distributing their prepackaged samples and sharing product features with festival attendees; it did not specify that the sharing had to be verbal.

Ms. Glass admitted she did not know anything about Martinez’s job performance at the Convention. (May 1, 2023 TT, pp. 53:27 – 54:27.) Ms. Glass admitted GT did not know whether Martinez could share product features using demonstration because Ms. Glass was not at the Convention. (Id., at pp. 53:27-54:2.) Ms. Glass admitted it was possible to get client approval to allow Martinez to use a piece of paper to write any scripts to share product features. (Id., at pp. 54:28-55:7.) Ms. Glass indicated that because it was so “late in the game” that Advantage was not contacted to talk about potentially accommodating Martinez. (Id., at pp. 24:24 – 25:8.)

GT did not have a clear instruction from the client to terminate Martinez but that was the action taken by GT. It was Monique Alvarez who concluded that the client wanted Martinez replaced. (Exh. “13,” text messages between Freeman and Alvarez.) (May 17, 2023 TT, pp. 33:7-26.)

Ms. Freeman admitted that after her text message exchange with Monique Alvarez, the decision was made to terminate Martinez. (May 16, 2023 TT, pp. 54:1 – 5.) After texting with Ms. Alvarez and the one conversation with Samantha Schantz, Ms. Freeman terminated Martinez without ever offering an interactive process or accommodation. No one from GT testified that the Brand Ambassador who replaced Martinez was deaf (May 23, 2023 TT, pp.71:5 – 72:12.)

3) Martinez’s disability was a substantial motivating reason to terminate her

Ms. Freeman admitted Martinez was terminated because of her disability. At trial, Ms. Freeman was asked whether Ms. Martinez was requested to be replaced because of her disability, to which she responded: “The client’s words were, she was not communicating or speaking to myself and the attendees, so she needs to be let go and replaced.” (May 17, TT, pp. 30:19–27.) When asked in follow up, “That was her disability, correct?” Ms. Freeman replied: “That she is not able to speak? Yeah. That’s her disability.” (May 17 TT, pp. 31:8–10.)

Martinez lost the two remaining days of work on the job and she suffered emotional distress. (May 23, 2023 TT, pp. 49:1 – 28; and 51:12 – 20.)

Per CACI 430, a substantial factor is “a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm.” Here, GT’s refusal to allow Martinez to finish the assignment at the Convention because she was deaf was the cause of Martinez’s harm.

The Court finds that Martinez proved her cause of action for disability discrimination by GT.

Under CACI 2430 the elements of this claim areas follows: (1) Martinez was employed by GT; (2) GT terminated Martinez; (3) Martinez’s disability was a substantial motivating reason for her discharge; (4) Martinez was harmed; and (5) the discharge was a substantial factor in causing Martinez harm. Here, the first two elements were met by way of stipulated facts. Plaintiff proved the rest of the elements, as discussed above, namely, that her disability was a substantial motivating reason for her discharge, that she was harmed, and that the discharge was a substantial factor in causing harm.

The Court finds that Martinez proved her cause of action for wrongful termination by GT.

There was no evidence presented that anyone from GT engaged in any interactive process with Martinez once it was learned that Martinez was deaf. Instead, GT simply decided to terminate her employment.

The Court finds that Martinez proved her cause of action for failure to engage in a good faith interactive process by GT.

There was no evidence presented that anyone from GT attempted to accommodate Martinez’s disability.

The Court finds that Martinez proved her cause of action for failure to accommodate Martinez’s disability by GT.

There was insufficient evidence at trial to establish the cause of action for failure to prevent discrimination. There was no evidence regarding steps that were or were not taken by GT to prevent discrimination.

Martinez’s job with GT was a very limited one; it was three days only. There was no promise of future employment beyond the three days. Consequently, the special damages for termination are limited to $360 (i.e., $180 per day).

Martinez’s evidence of emotional distress damages was unrefuted. The Court finds that Martinez is entitled to recover emotional distress damages in the amount of $20,000.00.

The Court finds in favor of Martinez on its discrimination, wrongful termination, failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to accommodate causes of action and awards damages in the amount of $ $20,360, plus attorney fees and costs per motion. The Court finds in favor of GT on the failure to prevent discrimination cause of action. Within ten days after this Statement of Decision becomes final, Martinez is ordered to file and serve a proposed judgment in accordance with these findings (with a courtesy copy delivered to Dept. 50). The Court hereby dismisses the Doe defendants.

Martinez is ordered to give notice of this tentative and proposed Statement of Decision.

[1] At the Final Status Conference on April 18, 2022, the parties agreed that Defendant GT Agency is a dba for GT Events Management, Inc. and it was dismissed without prejudice as a defendant. The parties also agreed that Defendant GT Event Management, Inc. agrees to accept all liability for Defendant GT Events, Inc., a Nevada corporation that is no longer doing business and, therefore, the Nevada corporation was dismissed without prejudice as a defendant.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50