Attorney fees awarded in Inglewood Costco gay discrimination lawsuit
From City News Service:
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Two months after Costco was ordered to pay $420,000 to an employee who was retaliated against for complaining of mistreatment because he is gay and HIV-positive, the warehouse store was ordered today to pay an even larger amount in attorneys' fees.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis directed Costco to pay lawyer Leo J. Terrell $471,240, plus another $39,540 in costs. Terrell was entitled to attorneys' fees because the case involved discrimination.
On Dec. 3, a jury found that Terrell's client, Juan I. Valera, endured a hostile work environment at the Inglewood warehouse. The jury, which did not include any gay members, rejected his claims of sexual orientation discrimination, that Costco failed to provide accommodations for his needs and that the company acted with malice.
"I'm happy with getting all my fees,'' Terrell said outside court. Terrell said he is still trying to get Valera, who remains on leave from Costco, reinstated by the company to his old position as photo manager and may have to file another lawsuit on his behalf to do so.
"He's unemployed and has no health insurance, and that's a death sentence for someone who has HIV,'' Terrell said.
Valera, 45, filed the lawsuit in October 2006. According to Terrell, after more than 20 years at Costco, everything changed for his client when a new general manager, John Weaver, arrived at the Inglewood location in 2005 and casually used the word ``queers'' in a statement.
Valera took a leave of absence because of the stress, and when he returned asked the assistant general manager to protect him from further insensitive remarks, Terrell said. A day later, his work load was doubled and his pay was cut, according to Terrell.
Valera was forced to take a second continued stress leave and was demoted to cashier, Terrell said. He also eventually was stripped of his benefits, according to his attorney.
In May 2006, the woman who replaced him as photo manager, Elaine Ponce, filmed what was supposed to be a training video that depicted fellow Costco employee Kenneth Ellison mimicking Valera and calling him Auntie Juan, Terrell said.
The tape begins with Ellison stating to another employee, Carlos Taylor: "Carlos, I have a dilemma; next Friday is my Auntie Juan's bar mitzvah. He is a transsexual.''
Terrell told jurors there was no doubt the co-workers were making fun of Valera in the video.
But defense attorneys maintained the three workers made the video while acting out a scenario in which a Costco employee asks for time off on short notice, and that the unlikely names and scenario were meant to convey the weak reasoning of the person making the late request.
Valera lost his benefits under Costco policy because he was gone for six months on one of his leaves of absence, according to the defense lawyers.
After Weaver was shown the video, he demoted Ponce and one of the other employees involved, according to the defense lawyers.
4 Comments
Leave a comment
About the Blogger
Larry Altman has covered crime in the South Bay since 1990. He's seen it all - the missing model who turned up dead in the desert, the wives found dead in trunks, the high-school coaches who get a little too close to their players. He drives his young colleagues nuts with his "I remember when" stories. He welcomes your tips and observations about the present, and you can mix in a little Lakers basketball talk if you like.
E-mail Larry at larry.altman@dailybreeze.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
I'm confused... the attorney fees were $471,240???
just another example of our fine legal system...the lawyers get paid and everyone else gets screwed
I'm glad he got the money and his client. Try working for that company for 20 years and see what they do to you.
It is high time that a plaintiff who has suffered employment law abuse, was not forced to lose half of their award to attorney's fees. If the defendant loses, they SHOULD pay attorney's fees, because it was their illegal action that brought the case in the first place. Had they honored employment laws and the plaintiff's right to work without a hostile workplace, the taxpayers wouldn't have been forced to deal with a case like this. And if they are forced to pay for breaking Employment laws, maybe they will think twice before then enable illegal behavior.