Both sides claimed victory after a California judge issued a preliminary ruling in a discrimination lawsuit filed by several agents against the California State Automobile Association.
The case was scheduled for trial Oct. 20, after Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith denied the auto insurer's motion for a summary judgment even as she rejected some of the plaintiff's claims.
In her ruling, the judge concluded that while the plaintiffs had enough evidence to raise the issue of whether discrimination against non-English speakers played a role in their firing, CSAA was not required to show cause for dismissing them under the terms of their employment and had not made any defamatory statements about the agents.
Denying summary judgment on the discrimination charges, Judge Smith found statements of the plaintiffs show “evidence that CSAA, including the underwriting department at CSAA, did not encourage business with Chinese American customers and perceived that insuring the Chinese American community was not profitable.”
Additionally, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs' statements could lead to an inference “that CSAA was motivated to terminate plaintiffs because of their association with Chinese American clients.”
The agents involved in the case were alleged to have been involved in improper transactions, which their attorney denied.
“This termination of seven hardworking, long time insurance agents of CSAA is particularly egregious,” said attorney J. Gary Gwilliam of the law firm Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer.
Mr. Gwilliam said of the agents, “They were falsely accused of misrepresentation and dishonesty. The termination has caused them all significant economic loss and serious emotional distress.
“CSAA should be liable for significant punitive damages for its intentional violation of laws prohibiting discrimination against employees as well as against their own insureds and customers.”
While the judge found the plaintiffs' arguments compelling enough to sustain the discrimination issue for trial, she also granted part of CSAA's motion to dismiss some of the charges because the company was not required to show cause for termination under the plaintiff's terms of employment.
Judge Smith noted that it was undisputed that a plaintiff in the case was never told he could only be terminated for good cause, still, “his subjective feelings about whether good cause was required for termination does not create a triable issue.”
Furthermore, the judge also concluded that the plaintiffs had not presented any evidence that CSAA had made defamatory remarks about them, noting that it is “undisputed” that one of the plaintiffs “has no evidence that CSAA told anyone outside the company why he was terminated.”
Jennifer Mack, a spokesperson for CSAA, said the company was “pleased with the rulings in our favor and looks forward to presenting our side to the jury at trial.”
“The summary judgment on these factual disputes has resulted in a significantly narrowed case that we believe is without merit,” she added. “Judge Smith's decision validates a number of the positions we put forward in this case.”
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
