Hernandez v. Mayorga
4:16-cv-00637
N.D. Cal.Apr 26, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs are current and former bartenders/waitresses who sued Club Mix 26 and its owners for sexual harassment, retaliation, battery, UCL and wage-and-hour violations; the parties executed a written settlement on May 10, 2017 and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce it.
- The Settlement Agreement required, among other things, payment to plaintiffs, restoration of employee Nidia Tercero to her pre-suit position/hours/schedule (≈80 hours per two weeks and five night-waitress shifts/week), revised lawful policies (dress code, sick leave, wage-and-hour), individual lockers at no charge, elimination of unlawful practices (e.g., $5 per-shift cleaning fee, reimbursement for cash shortages, paying for unpaid customer drinks), and appointment of an Independent Monitor.
- Plaintiffs moved to enforce the settlement (filed Jan. 25, 2018), alleging ongoing violations: Tercero not restored to schedule/hours, continued skirt/shorts-only dress code, $5 cleaning fee, reimbursements for register shortages, charging for storage, incomplete personnel files, and unpaid sick pay for employees.
- Independent Monitor reports and Tercero’s declarations documented continued noncompliance through December 2017; some practices were later represented by Defendants to have stopped, but Defendants produced limited documentary evidence and conceded some failures to timely perform.
- The court held a hearing, found numerous breaches, awarded remedial orders (immediate compliance with specified provisions), $4,479.30 in lost wages to Tercero for May 2017–Jan. 2018, and directed Plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys’ fees by May 17, 2018.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dress code (§1.9) | Club still requires female employees to wear skirts/shorts; policy not revised | Substantial compliance or changes made | Court: No compliance; immediate revision and compliance ordered |
| Lockers/charging for storage (§1.12) | Club charged $2 and not all had locks; some belongings stored unsecured | Club installed lockers and purchased locks (decl.) | Court: Not proven for all employees; ordered lockers/locks for each and no charges |
| Elimination of unlawful practices (§1.13) | $5 cleaning fee and reimbursement for register shortages continued | Claimed they stopped some practices; limited proof | Court: $5 fee and reimbursements ordered stopped; paying for unpaid drinks found ceased |
| Restoration of Tercero’s hours/schedule (§1.17) | Tercero not restored to ~80 hrs/2 weeks nor night-shift waitress schedule; lost wages claimed | Defendants dispute historical hours worked (argue fewer hours historically) | Court: Contract language controls; ordered immediate restoration to ~80 hrs/2 weeks and night-shift schedule; awarded $4,479.30 in lost wages |
| Sick leave (§1.14 & §1.17) | Many employees not paid sick leave; Tercero paid only after enforcement | Defendants paid Tercero (Feb 2018) and argue compliance | Court: Tercero paid but other employees not shown to have been paid; ordered full compliance |
| Personnel files and policy acknowledgements (§1.20 & §1.9) | Independent Monitor denied access; records incomplete | Defendants say they began maintaining records | Court: Access and complete records not provided; ordered immediate compliance and Monitor access |
| Attorneys’ fees (§7.1) | Prevailing party status and fees for enforcement motion | — | Court: Plaintiffs prevailed; ordered Plaintiffs to file motion for specific fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement)
- Adams v. Johns–Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702 (9th Cir.) (motion to enforce settlement is specific-performance action; court may hear evidence)
- Botefur v. City of Eagle Point, Or., 7 F.3d 152 (9th Cir.) (settlement interpretation governed by state contract law)
- Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.) (same principle re: contract law govern interpretation)
- United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853 (9th Cir.) (applying state contract law to settlement interpretation)
- Maggio v. Windward Capital Mgmt. Co., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1210 (Cal. Ct. App.) (clear contract language controls, no extrinsic evidence)
- Barndt v. County of Los Angeles, 211 Cal. App. 3d 397 (Cal. Ct. App.) (damages remedy for past breaches of personal service contracts)
- Tamarind Lithography Workshop, Inc. v. Sanders, 143 Cal. App. 3d 571 (Cal. Ct. App.) (awarding damages for past breaches in addition to specific performance)
- Martin v. U-Haul Co. of Fresno, 204 Cal. App. 3d 396 (Cal. Ct. App.) (damages aim to give injured party benefit of the bargain)