Fuentes v. Autozone, Inc.
133 Cal. Rptr. 3d 409
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Fuentes, 21, worked part-time cashier for AutoZone at Normandie/Florence stores; May–June 2003 period when Garcia acted as store manager during Vaca's leave.
- Garcia and Carrillo allegedly engaged in sexual harassment: forcing Fuentes to display her buttocks to customers, spreading herpes rumors, and making sexual comments about Jimenez or Fuentes.
- Fuentes complained to management, was transferred, and the two managers were later terminated; Fuentes left AutoZone in 2005.
- Fuentes sued AutoZone, Garcia, and Carrillo for FEHA sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and slander; trial court granted summary judgment to defendants.
- Jury found Garcia and Carrillo liable for harassment, AutoZone strictly liable for supervisors, awarded Fuentes $160,000 in damages; Fuentes was awarded $677,025 in attorney fees and $23,898.76 in costs; this court affirmed in part and reversed in part in Fuentes I.
- Court held substantial evidence supported a hostile environment finding under the totality of circumstances, and affirmed the judgment and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to support a hostile environment finding? | Fuentes argues the totality of the circumstances shows severe/pervasive harassment. | AutoZone contends the conduct was not pervasive/severe and testimony was inherently improbable. | Yes; substantial evidence supports hostile environment verdict. |
| Were Fuentes’s testimony and related evidence inherently improbable? | Fuentes' testimony corroborated by witnesses and reflects pervasive conduct. | Testimony contained inconsistencies and was inherently improbable. | No; testimony not inherently improbable; credibility for jury. |
| Did AutoZone waive challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence by focusing on selected trial evidence? | Fuentes argues sufficiency challenge preserved; trial record supports verdict. | AutoZone asserted insufficiency; but appellant contends waiver via selective evidence. | No waiver; court rejects slanted/partial discussion; substantial evidence supports verdict. |
| Was the attorney-fee award proper against AutoZone? | Fuentes seeks full fee recovery per FEHA statutory framework. | AutoZone argues fee award excessive. | Yes; award of attorney fees affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009) (totality-of-circumstances test for hostile environment under FEHA)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1994) (pervasiveness/severity factors in hostile environment analysis)
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) (hostile environment standard; not actionable where conduct not directed at plaintiff)
- Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 365 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (summarizes pattern of harassment; not pervasively actionable)
- Mokler v. County of Orange, 157 Cal.App.4th 121 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (three incidents over five weeks not necessarily pervasive)
- Beck Development Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 44 Cal.App.4th 1160 (Cal. App. 4th 1996) (credibility of witness is generally for jury; not reversible on mere contradictions)
- DiQuisto v. County of Santa Clara, 181 Cal.App.4th 236 (Cal. App. 4th 2010) (inherent improbability standard limited to face-of-claim probability)
- Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009) (discussed above; included for totality standard)
- Ennis v. People, 190 Cal.App.4th 721 (Cal. App. 4th 2010) ( Credibility and appellate review standards for witness testimony)