225 F. Supp. 3d 1115
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiff Miriam Andrade worked as a non-exempt employee at an Arby’s restaurant owned by Altamira Corp. from early 2014 until her termination on April 17, 2015; she alleges unpaid wages/overtime, missed meal breaks, inaccurate pay statements, and retaliatory termination.
- Andrade alleges repeated sexual harassment and an on‑the‑job sexual assault/battery by supervisor Pedro Mota, which she reported to a shift supervisor; Mota later settled and was dismissed from the case.
- Altamira’s counsel withdrew; Altamira failed to retain new counsel or otherwise defend after the withdrawal; the clerk entered default and Andrade moved for default judgment.
- The magistrate judge applied the Eitel factors, treated well‑pleaded allegations as true for liability (except damages), and reviewed evidentiary submissions and Andrade’s hearing testimony.
- The Court found Altamira liable on multiple claims (FEHA sexual harassment; sexual battery; assault; FLSA and California wage claims; wage statement and civil penalty claims; retaliation; wrongful termination), denied some claims (failure to prevent harassment; Labor Code § 210 civil penalties; certain UCL relief), awarded damages and attorneys’ fees, and declined punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for FEHA sexual harassment (hostile work environment / supervisor liability) | Andrade: Mota repeatedly made sexual advances, touched and kissed her, reported it, employer failed to investigate, employer strictly liable for supervisor conduct | Altamira: (no appearance/defense) | Granted — Court found harassment was sufficiently severe/pervasive, employer strictly liable for supervisor conduct and failed to take corrective action |
| Sexual battery / assault and employer ratification | Andrade: Mota’s grabbing/kissing caused imminent apprehension and offensive contact; she complained to a supervisor and employer failed to act, supporting ratification | Altamira: (no appearance/defense) | Granted — Court found battery/assault established and employer ratified conduct by failing to investigate or discipline |
| Failure to prevent harassment under Cal. Gov’t Code §12940(k) | Andrade: employer lacked training and prevention, causing harm | Altamira: (no appearance/defense) | Denied — plaintiff failed to plead causation showing lack of training was a substantial factor in causing harassment |
| Wage claims (FLSA and Cal. Labor Code: unpaid minimum, overtime, missed meal breaks, wage statements, waiting time penalties, §558 penalties) | Andrade: unpaid overtime, underpaid minimum wage for at least one pay period, missed uninterrupted meal breaks, inaccurate wage statements, owed waiting time and civil penalties | Altamira: (no appearance/defense) | Granted in part — Court found violations of FLSA and applicable Labor Code provisions, awarded specific wage, meal‑break, liquidated, wage‑statement and waiting‑time damages and civil penalties eligibility |
| Unlawful retaliation / wrongful termination (FEHA & public policy) | Andrade: termination followed unionization/complaints and confrontation with manager; protected activity causally linked to discharge | Altamira: (no appearance/defense) | Granted — Court found protected activity, adverse action, and circumstantial evidence of causation sufficient for default judgment |
| UCL (§17200) remedies (restitution/injunction) | Andrade: UCL claim based on underlying unlawful wage and employment law violations; requests restitution and an injunction | Altamira: (no appearance/defense) | Denied for injunctive relief and limited for restitution — Court found unlawful practices pleaded but insufficient evidence of continuing threat to justify injunction and restitution beyond other remedies |
| Punitive damages | Andrade: requested further hearing asserting malice/ratification by employer | Altamira: (no appearance/defense) | Denied — plaintiff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence oppression, fraud, or malice by corporate officers or ratification to support punitive award |
Key Cases Cited
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir.) (standard permitting district court discretion to enter default judgment)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir.) (factors for evaluating default judgment motions)
- Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal.) (FEHA hostile‑work‑environment / severity and pervasiveness standard)
- State Dep’t of Health Servs. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.4th 1026 (Cal.) (employer strict liability for supervisor harassment)
- Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc., 65 Cal.App.4th 833 (Cal. Ct. App.) (failure to investigate/discipline can support employer ratification and civil liability)
- Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir.) (default does not establish facts not well‑pleaded or legal conclusions)