Robles v. Agreserves, Inc.
158 F. Supp. 3d 952
E.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiff Juan Carlos Robles, a seasonal agricultural employee for Agreserves, worked Feb–Apr 2013 and alleges Title VII and California claims (FEHA, Labor Code, torts) against employer Agreserves and supervisors Jay Payne and George Campo.
- Robles alleges repeated religious (Mormon) comments and forced participation in prayer by Campo while Campo supervised him for ~3 weeks; Robles is Catholic.
- Robles alleges safety incidents: a tractor injury (Mar 14, 2013) and an episode where Campo discharged a rifle while employees were present (Robles heard shots but did not see shooter aim); Robles also alleges Campo struck his hand in a company vehicle.
- Robles claims frequent denial/impeding of 22 meal breaks under foremen Campo and Cervantes; payroll records do not show premium pay for missed meals.
- Payne investigated the March accident and alleged misconduct, met with Robles (Mar 28), found Robles insubordinate/dishonest and terminated him Apr 1; a 3-minute audio of the termination meeting exists and Robles recorded it.
- Court granted and denied summary judgment in part: key surviving claims include Title VII national-origin discrimination as to Agreserves, FEHA religious harassment and related IIED against Campo, meal-break/Lab. Code § 226.7 claims against Agreserves, a false-imprisonment claim against Payne, and IIED/discharge-related claims against Agreserves; many tort and statutory claims were dismissed or preempted by workers’ compensation or barred procedurally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Payne committed battery or assault during termination meeting | Robles says Payne pushed him (battery) and blocked exit (assault/false imprisonment) | Payne: minor workplace flare-up; workers’ compensation preempts battery; meeting lawfully closed and Robles consented/left | Battery/assault vs Payne: battery/assault preempted by workers’ comp and dismissed; false imprisonment vs Payne: disputed factual issues — SJ denied |
| Whether Campo’s religious/national-origin remarks and conduct created hostile work environment under FEHA/Title VII | Robles: Campo repeatedly belittled non‑Mormons and forced prayer, creating pervasive hostile environment | Campo: remarks were occasional/braggadocio, not severe or pervasive; some statements struck as sham | FEHA religion harassment against Campo: triable (SJ denied). FEHA national‑origin harassment vs Campo: evidence insufficient after striking inconsistent declarations (SJ granted) |
| Whether Agreserves is liable for discrimination/harassment/retaliation (Title VII and FEHA) | Robles: Payne used slurs ("stupid/fucking Mexican"), Payne relied on Campo’s negative report (cat’s paw), employer failed to remedy reported harassment | Agreserves: Payne conducted independent investigation and terminated for nondiscriminatory reasons; no knowledge of complaints; Campo not a decisionmaker | Title VII national‑origin discrimination against Agreserves: triable due to Payne’s discriminatory remarks (SJ denied). Title VII/FEHA harassment/retaliation claims limited: some harassment/retaliation claims against Agreserves dismissed; FEHA religion harassment surviving as employer claim (SJ denied) |
| Whether meal‑break and wage‑statement claims (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512, 226, 558) survive | Robles: foremen prevented meal breaks ~22 days; paystubs show no premium pay; wage statements inaccurate | Agreserves: policies in place, employer not required to police breaks, no knowing/intentional §226 violations; §558 does not create private cause of action | Claims for missed meal breaks and related §226.7/§512 and UCL survive (SJ denied). §226 wage‑statement penalties largely time‑barred or require knowing intent; Agreserves’ §226 claim dismissed in part; §558 claim dismissed (no private cause of action) |
Key Cases Cited
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct.) (movant’s burden at summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct.) (genuine dispute and inferences at summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Sup. Ct.) (summary judgment and inferences)
- Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Serv., 26 Cal.4th 995 (Cal. 2001) (workers’ comp preemption for workplace altercations; exception for willful assault)
- Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 701 (Cal. 1994) (false imprisonment and employment‑context analyses)
- Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009) (IIED elements; severe emotional distress standard)
- Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal.4th 965 (Cal. 1993) (IIED and outrageous conduct)
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) (hostile work environment / harassment standards)
- Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 121 (Cal. 1999) (pattern/severity for harassment)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (Sup. Ct.) ("cat’s paw" liability / proximate causation in employment decisions)
- Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, 771 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment: divergent inferences preclude disposition)