Regents fail to accommodate food-service work injury, then fire plaintiff after a medical leave. $6M. Los Angeles County.
Summary
Food services manager, in 60s, claims UCLA did not accommodate his restrictions after an on-the-job injury; later fired him on a pretext.
The Case
- Case Name: Yosifi v. The Regents of the University of California
- Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / BC724191
- Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, December 05, 2023
- Date Action was Filed: Thursday, October 04, 2018
- Type of Case: Employment
- Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Wendy Chang
-
Plaintiffs: Hekmatollah “Tony” Yosifi, 63
-
Defendants: The Regents of the University of California
- Type of Result: Jury Verdict
The Result
- Gross Verdict or Award: $6,131,204
-
Economic Damages:
Past: $485,131
Future: $646,073
-
Non-Economic Damages:
Past: $4,000,000
Future: $1,000,000
- Trial or Arbitration Time: 15 days
- Jury Deliberation Time: 5 1/2 to 6 hours
- Jury Polls: Failure to engage in interactive process: 11-1; Failure to accommodate: 11-1; Disability discrimination: 11-1; Disability harassment: 12-0; CFRA retaliation: 12-0; Failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation: 12-0.
The Attorneys
-
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Shegerian & Associates by Anthony Nguyen and Max Levy, Los Angeles.
Akopyan Law Firm by Ani Akopyan, Burbank.
-
Attorney for the Defendant:
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP by Stephen Ronk, Los Angeles.
Burke, William & Sorensen, LLP by Daphne M. Anneet, Los Angeles.
Facts and Background
-
Facts and Background:
Plaintiff was a food service division manager for the South Campus of the University of California, Los Angeles, where he oversaw several restaurants that are run by the Associated Students of UCLA.
Plaintiff was injured on the job and required accommodations for his ongoing restrictions. His supervisor, the Director of Food Services, did not make the needed accommodations either before or after his restrictions became permanent.
Then, while plaintiff was on medical leave, Bolton and ASUCLA claimed they discovered inventory variances in plaintiff’s division, which led to their investigation into the matter and conclusion that plaintiff had engaged in inventory fraud. When plaintiff returned from his medical leave, he was informed of his termination. Plaintiff was not informed of the investigation, nor was he interviewed about the issue.
-
Plaintiff's Contentions:
That while plaintiff was out on a medical leave, The Regents conducted an investigation into plaintiff, without his knowledge, about alleged inventory fraud, and then terminated him upon his return from medical leave.
Plaintiff contended that he did not engage in any fraud, had no motive to engage in fraud, and that if the issues had been discussed it would have revealed that the alleged fraud related to miscommunication between him and his staff about the inventory process.
Plaintiff contends that he was discriminated against because of his disability resulting from an on-the-job injury; that his disability required various physical restrictions and accommodations. That The Regents failed to affirmatively provide such accommodations, instead only telling him not to violate his restrictions, but without actually making any changes to his job or his duties.
Plaintiff claims that the termination was a pretext to get rid of him because of his disability and need for accommodations.
-
Defendant's Contentions:
Defendant denies that it discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against plaintiff, and claimed that it terminated plaintiff's employment for a legitimate reason relating to finding evidence of inventory fraud.
Additional Notes
Plaintiff made a demand of $1,350,000 in 2020.