Head v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, 3:24-cv-01203

Background

Terry Head worked for Costco from 1993 to June 30, 2022, primarily as an hourly sales employee; he took continuous leave from March 15, 2021 through June 30, 2022 for his wife’s illness and for his own health.
Costco informed Head in mid‑2022 that he had exhausted company leave and was not eligible for additional FMLA/CFRA leave; Costco scheduled him to return in July 2022 and offered voluntary resignation as an option; Head signed a resignation/termination form on June 30, 2022 (he contends it was a constructive discharge).
Head sought rehire after his wife’s death (April 2023); a new manager reviewed his personnel file, noted unsigned counseling notices, and declined to rehire in May 2023.
Head asserted multiple claims: whistleblower retaliation (Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5), associational disability discrimination and related FEHA claims (failure to accommodate, interactive‑process failure, FEHA retaliation), wrongful termination (public policy), and wage‑and‑hour claims (minimum wage, overtime, meal/rest periods, wage statements, waiting time penalties, UCL).
The Court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part: it dismissed the whistleblower claim and most discrimination counts (and punitive damages), but preserved FEHA claims for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation tied to accommodation requests (limited to the termination), while dismissing other discrimination theories and the wage‑and‑hour claims for lack of adequate proof of damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whistleblower retaliation — timeliness & causation	Head says past participation in 2001 wage‑and‑hour class action and ongoing advocacy support retaliation claim including 2022 termination and 2023 failure to rehire	Costco says §1102.5 claims are time‑barred for pre‑2021 acts and no causal link exists between 2001 activity and 2022/2023 actions	Summary judgment for Costco: pre‑2021 acts time‑barred (no continuing violation); no triable causation for late adverse acts; Count 1 dismissed
2) Associational disability discrimination (FEHA) — scope & merits	Head alleges Costco discriminated based on his association with his disabled wife (termination and failure to rehire)	Costco argues (a) many alleged adverse acts are time‑barred; (b) no discriminatory animus motivated termination or rehire decision	Summary judgment for Costco on discrimination claims (Counts 2–3): only termination and refusal to rehire remained but no evidence that associational disability was a substantial motivating factor
3) Failure to accommodate / interactive process / FEHA retaliation	Head claims he requested additional leave (to end of 2022) to care for his wife and that Costco refused, failed to engage in good‑faith interactive process, and retaliated	Costco contends accommodation cannot be based on associational disability and argues it provided leave consistent with law/policy	Denied as to summary judgment: court held associational accommodation claims plausible under FEHA and genuine disputes exist about reasonableness of additional leave and whether interactive process occurred; these claims proceed to trial (limited to termination)
4) Wage‑and‑hour claims (off‑the‑clock, meal/rest) — liability & damages	Head asserts managers compelled off‑the‑clock work and interruptions of breaks over many years	Costco argues payroll records show payment for overtime/meal premiums and Head failed to identify specific incidents or damages	Summary judgment for Costco on wage claims: liability evidence insufficient to prove frequency/extent; Head failed to present adequate damages proof (Hernandez burden shift unmet)

Key Cases Cited

Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 798 (Cal. 2001) (continuing‑violation test: similarity, frequency, permanence).
Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solns., Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013) (continuing‑violation doctrine explanation).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: view evidence in nonmovant's favor).
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant need only show absence of an essential element).
Castro‑Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 2 Cal. App. 5th 1028 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (recognizes FEHA associational disability and discusses accommodation/ discrimination interplay).
Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (employer duty to provide meal periods; employer not required to police employee activity during breaks).
Hernandez v. Mendoza, 199 Cal. App. 3d 721 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (burden‑shifting approach to proving unpaid work and damages when employer records are inadequate).
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (employer liability when it knows or should know of off‑the‑clock work).