Tyrese Gibson, et al. v. Home Depot—UNRUH Civil rights violations and negligent hiring, supervision and retention
 |
Case Summary
Tyrese Gibson's Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit filed August 9, 2023, alleges civil rights violations and negligent hiring, supervision and retention. Two of the 44-year-old singer/actor's construction workers, Eric Mora and Manual Hernandez, are also plaintiffs in the suit. The complaint is seeking more than $1 million in compensatory damages, the amount the suit maintains Gibson has spent over time at Home Depot and punitive damages. The suit alleges negligence in hiring, screening, training, supervising and/or retaining the employees in a competent manner was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.
Gibson and his workers went to the Victory Boulevard store on Feb. 11, where Gibson, worried his fame could cause a distraction, had his construction workers pay for the items the three selected with his credit card while he went to his car, the suit states. However, Gibson returned to the store when the cashier declined to complete the transaction, according to the suit.
He said that the cashier refused to put through the transaction for his workers and "gave no reasonable explanation other than repeating store policy and [demanding] to see a form of identification." Gibson said that the transaction was finally put through following an argument with the cashier, and that the manager would not speak with him. He said in court docs that "there is no other plausible explanation for the mistreatment of plaintiffs' besides racial discrimination."
Home Depot USA responded to the suit filed against them. In court papers filed on Sept. 28 with Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Home Depot lawyers cite numerous defenses, including that the company's actions were taken "in good faith, in accordance with business necessity, for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons." Home Depot "further denies any and all wrongful conduct, whether or not alleged in the complaint," denying that the plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
"As confirmed by store video surveillance, plaintiff Gibson was not present at the time the transaction was totaled," according to Home Depot attorneys, who further state that the plaintiffs should "take nothing" and that their lawsuit should be dismissed "with prejudice," meaning it could not be refiled.
"As confirmed by store video surveillance, plaintiff Gibson was not present at the time the transaction was totaled," according to Home Depot attorneys, who further state that the plaintiffs should "take nothing" and that their lawsuit should be dismissed "with prejudice," meaning it could not be refiled.
Court: Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Filing Date: 08/09/2023
Case Type: Civil Rights/Discrimination (General Jurisdiction)
Court Date: A non-jury or bench trial is set for 10/24/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 51 with a Final Status Conference set for 10/16/2024.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Todd Stanford Eagan with Lavely & Singer
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90067-2906
Los Angeles, California 90067-2906
Attorney for Defendant: Tamara Alicia Bush with Dykema Law Firm
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90071
Plaintiff's Case
Gibson's complaint alleges that a West Hills Home Depot store discriminated against he and his workers when purchasing supplies for a home improvement project. The suit also cites negligent hiring, supervision and retention practices as part of the suit. Alleging, "While the plaintiffs attempted to make an in-store purchase, store clerks purposely interfered with and refused to process the transaction based on their groundless suspicion of Gibson, Mora and Hernandez arising from their skin color, and, in the case of Mora and Hernandez, their national origin as well."
Gibson and two construction workers went to the West Hills Home Depot and while at check out the following happened:
The cashier was very slow scanning items, and the process took twenty minutes. Then, the cashier insisted that all items be re-scanned because of a purported glitch in the system. While the cashier re-ran the scanning of the merchandise (a process that extended another twenty minutes), Gibson was approached by shoppers who recognized him from his roles in motion pictures. Not wanting to create a disturbance in the store with his fans, Gibson decided it would be better to wait in his vehicle, which was parked outside. Gibson communicated to the cashier that he would proceed to the parking lot, and that Mora and Hernandez would be completing the purchase transaction with his credit card. Gibson asked the cashier if the cashier needed anything further from him to complete the transaction. The cashier said no, and that Gibson could leave. The cashier went on to not complete the transaction.
The cashier gave no reasonable explanation other than repeating “store policy” and demanded to see a form of identification. The manager refused to speak with Gibson in person. It was only after significant heated discussion with the cashier that Gibson was finally able to complete the transaction.
The actions of the cashier and manager were discriminatory based on race and origin. There is no other plausible explanation for the mistreatment of the plaintiffs.
Defendant's Case
The facts of the case are in question as Home Depot alleges that security camera footage does not support the plaintiff's account of what occurred. The Answer cites California Code of Civil Procedure §431.30.
Affirmative Defenses
1. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Home Depot.
2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs failed to mitigate the damages and/or failed to avoid the consequences and/or damages alleged in the Complaint.
3. Home Depot alleges that the alleged damages complained of by Plaintiffs, if any, which are expressly denied by Home Depot were caused by Plaintiffs own acts or omissions. These actions or omissions were the proximate and legal cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, and Plaintiffs are therefore barred from recovery from Home Depot.
4. Plaintiffs, by words, conduct, and actions, waived any and all claims, obligations, and liabilities as to any and all matters raised in the Complaint, thereby barring any recovery against Home Depot.
5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the doctrine of unclean hands by creating the very conditions and circumstances about which Plaintiffs now complain or by engaging in improper conduct, thereby causing undue prejudice to Home Depot.
6. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action.
7. Without admitting that any violation took place or admitting the allegations in the Complaint, but in the event a violation might subsequently be found, Home Depot alleges that Home Depot did not willfully, knowingly, and/or intentionally fail to comply with any law.
8. Home Depot alleges that the request for restitution, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief is barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged acts or omissions claimed have ceased, discontinued, and/or are not likely to occur again.
9. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery by the after-acquired evidence doctrine, or the doctrine of after-acquired evidence limits or reduces Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.
10. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Home Depot’s actions with respect to Plaintiffs were done or undertaken in good faith, in accordance with business necessity, for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, and/or any combination thereof.
11. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive, exemplary, and/or treble damages are barred because Home Depot did not act with malice, oppression, or fraud.
12. Home Depot reserves the right to assert further, and additional affirmative defenses based upon information which may be provided in discovery or other investigation in the course of this litigation.
1. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Home Depot.
2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs failed to mitigate the damages and/or failed to avoid the consequences and/or damages alleged in the Complaint.
3. Home Depot alleges that the alleged damages complained of by Plaintiffs, if any, which are expressly denied by Home Depot were caused by Plaintiffs own acts or omissions. These actions or omissions were the proximate and legal cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, if any, and Plaintiffs are therefore barred from recovery from Home Depot.
4. Plaintiffs, by words, conduct, and actions, waived any and all claims, obligations, and liabilities as to any and all matters raised in the Complaint, thereby barring any recovery against Home Depot.
5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the doctrine of unclean hands by creating the very conditions and circumstances about which Plaintiffs now complain or by engaging in improper conduct, thereby causing undue prejudice to Home Depot.
6. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action.
7. Without admitting that any violation took place or admitting the allegations in the Complaint, but in the event a violation might subsequently be found, Home Depot alleges that Home Depot did not willfully, knowingly, and/or intentionally fail to comply with any law.
8. Home Depot alleges that the request for restitution, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief is barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged acts or omissions claimed have ceased, discontinued, and/or are not likely to occur again.
9. Plaintiffs are barred from recovery by the after-acquired evidence doctrine, or the doctrine of after-acquired evidence limits or reduces Plaintiffs’ alleged damages.
10. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Home Depot’s actions with respect to Plaintiffs were done or undertaken in good faith, in accordance with business necessity, for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, and/or any combination thereof.
11. Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive, exemplary, and/or treble damages are barred because Home Depot did not act with malice, oppression, or fraud.
12. Home Depot reserves the right to assert further, and additional affirmative defenses based upon information which may be provided in discovery or other investigation in the course of this litigation.
Case Law
Angelucci v. Century Supper Club
Male night club patrons who were charged higher price for admission than female patrons sued club, alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC278640, Joseph R. Kalin, J., granted club's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and entered judgment in club's favor. Patrons appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Patrons petitioned for review. The Supreme Court held that patrons, as part of claim under Unruh Civil Rights Act, were not required to demonstrate that they affirmatively requested nondiscriminatory treatment and were refused. Judgment of Court of Appeal reversed.What it Means
The Unruh Civil Rights Act must be construed liberally in order to carry out its purpose. An individual plaintiff has standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act if he or she has been the victim of the defendant's discriminatory act or some invasion of the plaintiff's legally protected interests. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal. 4th 160, 167 (2007)
The Unruh Civil Rights Act must be construed liberally in order to carry out its purpose. An individual plaintiff has standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act if he or she has been the victim of the defendant's discriminatory act or some invasion of the plaintiff's legally protected interests. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal. 4th 160, 167 (2007)
Smith v. BP Lubricants
African American employee brought action against company and company representative alleging representative made several comments to the employee during presentation of company product that he considered racist and offensive in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Act and alleging a claim against representative for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The Superior Court, San Bernardino County, No. CIVDS1820485 sustained company and representative's demurrer without leave to amend. The employee appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the employee failed to allege any facts suggesting concerted activity between employer, company and representative to commit FEHA violations; the employee sufficiently alleged that representative acted intentionally or unreasonably with recognition that acts were likely to result in illness through mental distress; and the employee plausibly alleged representative was acting as a business establishment. Reversed.
What it means
The Unruh Act's coverage must be interpreted in broadest sense reasonably possible. The Unruh Act is confined to discriminations against recipients of business establishment's goods, services, or facilities. The Unruh Act can be violated by words alone. Unruh Act claims are appropriate where the plaintiff was in a relationship with the offending organization similar to that of the customer in the customer-proprietor relationship. Unruh Act claims are appropriate where the plaintiff was in a relationship with the offending organization similar to that of the customer in the customer-proprietor relationship. Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc., 64 Cal. App. 5th 138, 278 Cal. Rptr. 3d 587 (2021).
Other Cases of Note
In general terms, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act states that all persons are entitled to free and equal accommodations, privileges, facilities and services in all business establishments, and secures equal access to public accommodations and prohibits discrimination by business establishments. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,C.A.9 (Cal.)2001, 266 F.3d 979, opinion amended on denial of rehearing 275 F.3d1187.
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination in provision of accommodations and services in all business establishments, encompasses not solely access to business establishments, but also treatment of patrons. De Walshe v. Togo's Eateries, Inc., C.D.Cal.2008, 567 F.Supp.2d 1198
Unruh Civil Rights Act provides a cause of action for intentional discrimination by a business establishment. Walsh v. Tehachapi Unified School Dist., E.D.Cal.2011, 827 F.Supp.2d 1107
Help under California Civil Rights LawUnder the California Constitution and California Civil Code section 52.3, the Attorney General is authorized to conduct civil investigations into whether a law enforcement agency has engaged in a pattern or practice of violating state or federal law as the Racial Justice Bureau. As opposed to a criminal investigation into an individual incident or incidents, a pattern or practice investigation typically works to identify and, as appropriate, compel the correction of systemic violations of the constitutional rights of the community at large.
For individual matters, please submit a complaint with California's Civil Rights Department (formerly California Department of Fair Employment and Housing). To file a complaint with the civil rights department, click here.
More Links for Civil Rights Complaints
To conduct interactive data comparisons via Open Justice, click here.
The Law —California Civil Code § 51 & 52
51. (a) This section
shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are
free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital
status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration
status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every
kind whatsoever.
(c) This section shall not be construed to confer any right
or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is
applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual
orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, or to
persons regardless of their genetic information.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require
any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification
of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or
modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new
or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other
structure, nor shall anything in this section be construed to augment,
restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State Architect to require
construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect
otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws.
(e) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Disability” means any mental or physical disability as defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 of the Government Code.
(2) (A) “Genetic information” means, with respect to any individual, information about any of the following:(i) The individual’s genetic tests.
(ii) The genetic tests of family members of the individual.
(iii) The manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of the individual.
(B) “Genetic information” includes any request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or participation in clinical research that includes genetic services, by an individual or any family member of the individual.
(C) “Genetic information” does not include information about the sex or age of any individual.
(3) “Medical condition” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 12926 of the Government Code.
(4) “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice.
(5) “Sex” includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. “Sex” also includes, but is not limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
(6) “Sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status” includes a perception that the person has any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories.
(7) “Sexual orientation” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (s) of Section 12926 of the Government Code.
(f) A violation of the right of any individual under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) shall also constitute a violation of this section.
(g) Verification of immigration status and any discrimination based upon verified immigration status, where required by federal law, shall not constitute a violation of this section.
(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the provision of services or documents in a language other than English, beyond that which is otherwise required by other provisions of federal, state, or local law, including Section 1632.
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 282, Sec. 1. (SB 600) Effective January 1, 2016.)
(5) Recognition under the pilot program does not establish and is not relevant to any defense of claims brought under existing law.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2028, and as of that date is repealed.
(Added by Stats. 2022, Ch. 315, Sec. 1. (AB 2448) Effective January 1, 2023. Repealed as of July 1, 2028, by its own provisions.)
52. (a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.
(b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the following:
(1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages.
(2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7 in any action brought by the person denied the right, or by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney. An action for that penalty brought pursuant to Section 51.7 shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice.(3) Attorney’s fees as may be determined by the court.
(c) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in conduct of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights described in this section, and that conduct is of that nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of those rights, the Attorney General, any district attorney or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the conduct may bring a civil action in the appropriate court by filing with it a complaint. The complaint shall contain the following:
(1) The signature of the officer, or, in the officer’s absence, the individual acting on behalf of the officer, or the signature of the person aggrieved.
(2) The facts pertaining to the conduct.
(3) A request for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or persons responsible for the conduct, as the complainant deems necessary to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights described in this section.
(f) A violation of the right of any individual under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) shall also constitute a violation of this section.
(g) Verification of immigration status and any discrimination based upon verified immigration status, where required by federal law, shall not constitute a violation of this section.
(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the provision of services or documents in a language other than English, beyond that which is otherwise required by other provisions of federal, state, or local law, including Section 1632.
(Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 282, Sec. 1. (SB 600) Effective January 1, 2016.)
(5) Recognition under the pilot program does not establish and is not relevant to any defense of claims brought under existing law.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until July 1, 2028, and as of that date is repealed.
(Added by Stats. 2022, Ch. 315, Sec. 1. (AB 2448) Effective January 1, 2023. Repealed as of July 1, 2028, by its own provisions.)
52. (a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.
(b) Whoever denies the right provided by Section 51.7 or 51.9, or aids, incites, or conspires in that denial, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages suffered by any person denied that right and, in addition, the following:
(1) An amount to be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, for exemplary damages.
(2) A civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the person denied the right provided by Section 51.7 in any action brought by the person denied the right, or by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney. An action for that penalty brought pursuant to Section 51.7 shall be commenced within three years of the alleged practice.(3) Attorney’s fees as may be determined by the court.
(c) Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in conduct of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights described in this section, and that conduct is of that nature and is intended to deny the full exercise of those rights, the Attorney General, any district attorney or city attorney, or any person aggrieved by the conduct may bring a civil action in the appropriate court by filing with it a complaint. The complaint shall contain the following:
(1) The signature of the officer, or, in the officer’s absence, the individual acting on behalf of the officer, or the signature of the person aggrieved.
(2) The facts pertaining to the conduct.
(3) A request for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or persons responsible for the conduct, as the complainant deems necessary to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights described in this section.
(d) Whenever an action has been commenced in any court seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability, the Attorney General or any district attorney or city attorney for or in the name of the people of the State of California may intervene in the action upon timely application if the Attorney General or any district attorney or city attorney certifies that the case is of general public importance. In that action, the people of the State of California shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.
(e) Actions brought pursuant to this section are independent of any other actions, remedies, or procedures that may be available to an aggrieved party pursuant to any other law.
(f) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice in violation of Section 51 or 51.7 may also file a verified complaint with the Civil Rights Department pursuant to Section 12948 of the Government Code.
(g) This section does not require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, nor does this section augment, restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws.
(h) For the purposes of this section, “actual damages” means special and general damages. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law.
(i) Subdivisions (b) to (f), inclusive, shall not be waived by contract except as provided in Section 51.7.
(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 48, Sec. 5. (SB 189) Effective June 30, 2022.)
(e) Actions brought pursuant to this section are independent of any other actions, remedies, or procedures that may be available to an aggrieved party pursuant to any other law.
(f) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice in violation of Section 51 or 51.7 may also file a verified complaint with the Civil Rights Department pursuant to Section 12948 of the Government Code.
(g) This section does not require any construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction, alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise required by other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility, building, improvement, or any other structure, nor does this section augment, restrict, or alter in any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction, alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws.
(h) For the purposes of this section, “actual damages” means special and general damages. This subdivision is declaratory of existing law.
(i) Subdivisions (b) to (f), inclusive, shall not be waived by contract except as provided in Section 51.7.
(Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 48, Sec. 5. (SB 189) Effective June 30, 2022.)
Comments
Post a Comment