The Case

• Case Name: Sanchez, et al. v. Disney
• Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / 20STCV03170
• Date of Verdict or Judgment: Monday, December 15, 2025
• Date Action was Filed: Monday, January 20, 2020
• Type of Case: Employment, Harassment, Wrongful Termination
• Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Daniel S. Murphy
• Plaintiffs:
  Jose Luis Sanchez, 67
  Manuel Acevedo Fernandez
• Defendants:
  Walt Disney Co. and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, U.S., Inc.
• Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

• Gross Verdict or Award: $1,306,812
• Award as to each Defendant: Second plaintiff, Manuel Acevedo Fernandez, recovered no damages.
• Economic Damages: Past economic: $435,604
• Future economic: $0
• Non-Economic Damages: Past: $653,406
• Future: $217,802
• Trial or Arbitration Time: 39 days
• Jury Deliberation Time: Phase 1: 5 days; Phase 2: approximately 3 hours

The Attorneys

• Attorney for the Plaintiff:

  Shegerian & Associates by Carney Shegerian, Mark Lim, Adriana Burga and Arman Krpoyan, Los Angeles.

• Attorney for the Defendant:

  Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP by Emilio Gonzales, Giancarlo Urey and Maria Arakelian, Los Angeles.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background: For more than 34 years (1984-2019) plaintiff served guests within Disney hotels. Leading up to his termination, the 67-year-old plaintiff made numerous HR reports about Disney continuously threatening his position if he did not retire or take a demotion. 
• Plaintiff's Contentions: That plaintiff was harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against because of his age and his complaints reporting the misconduct. Further, that defendants wrongfully terminated plaintiff.Sanchez alleges the age-based harassment began around 2015, after manager Rona Kay took over his area, when he was approximately 58 years old. He claims Kay repeatedly asked when he would retire, encouraged early retirement, and threatened termination if he did not retire. He further alleges he was that told younger employees would do the job better, was pressured in private meetings to retire, and that managers criticized his English, suggested language classes, and discussed removing him from his Captain role. Also, that increased surveillance, reduced staffing, retaliatory discipline, and ultimately his termination in January 2019 were part of the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct.
• The conduct by defendants escalated each time plaintiff reported harassment and discrimination. The jury heard how this campaign of age bias and retaliation took a serious toll on his daily life, yet plaintiff continued to show up for his team and guests.
• Defendant's Contentions: That plaintiff violated company policy for allegedly watching pornography at work.