Javansalehi v. BF & Assocs. Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | 3:10-CV-850-PK |
| Parties | LESLIE JAVANSALEHI, Plaintiff, v. BF & ASSOCIATES, INC., BABAK FALLAZADEH, and MOHAMMED-REZA LOTFI, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
PlaintiffLeslie Javansalehi("Javansaheli") filed this action against BF & Associates, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation, Babak Fallazadeh, and Mohammed-Reza Lotfi on July 20, 2010.Javansalehi voluntarily dismissed Costco as a defendant on September 7, 2010.
BF & Associates, doing business as Atlas Imports, employed Javansalehi as a sales representative at a Hillsboro, Oregon, retail location from approximately January 10, 2009,through May 26, 2009.Javansalehi's husband, Ahad Javansalehi("Ahad") was also an employee of BF & Associates("Atlas"), as was her son (and Ahad's stepson)Josh Sumrell.Fallazadeh is (and at all material times was) the principal and owner/manager of Atlas, and Lotfi is (and at all material times was) an employee of Atlas.By and through her complaint, Javansalehi brings eleven separate causes of action arising out of the termination of her employment by Atlas and out of the terms and conditions of her employment prior to her termination.Specifically, Javansalehi alleges Atlas' liability for wrongful discharge in violation of Oregon common law, Atlas' and Fallazadeh's liability for failure to pay overtime in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act(29 U.S.C. § 216(b)), failure to pay Javansalehi final wages due and owing following the termination of her employment within the time specified for doing so under Or. Rev. Stat. 652.140(1),1 retaliation for complaining about wage discrimination in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. 652.355, retaliation in response to whistle-blowing activity in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. 659A. 199, family relationship discrimination in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. 659A.309, and retaliation for opposing unlawful practices in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. 559A.030(l)(f), Atlas', Fallazadeh's, and Lotfi's liability for aiding and abetting discrimination and/or retaliation in violation of 659A.030(l)(g), intentional interference with prospective economic relations while acting within the scope of their employment duties and/or as Javansalehi's employer,2 anddefamation,3 and Fallazadeh's and Lotfi's liability for intentional interference with existing economic relations while acting outside the scope of their employment duties.4This court has federal question jurisdiction over Javansalehi's FLSA overtime claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Now before the court is defendants' motion (#19) for partial summary judgment as to nine of Javansalehi's eleven claims.By and through their motion, defendants seek summary adjudication of Javansalehi's three retaliation claims (brought under Or, Rev. Stat. 652.355, 659A.199, and 659A.030(l)(f)), family relationship discrimination claim (brought under Or. Rev. Stat. 659A.309), aiding and abetting claim (brought under Or. Rev. Stat. 659A.030(1)(g)), common-law wrongful discharge claim, two common-law intentional interference claims, and common-law defamation claim.I have considered the motions, all of the pleadings on file, and oral argument on behalf of the parties.For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part as discussed below.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).Summary judgment is not proper if material factual issuesexist for trial.See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 411 U.S. 318, 322(1986);Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248(1986);Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439,441(9th Cir.1995), cert, denied, 116 S.Ct. 1261(1996).In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the district courts of the United States must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and may neither make credibility determinations nor perform any weighing of the evidence.See, e.g., Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 554-55(1990);Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133,150(2000).
Atlas is in the business of selling handmade imported rugs at retail.A significant portion of Atlas' business is conducted in stores located within retail establishments operated by former defendant Costco.Atlas' Hillsboro location, where Javansalehi was employed, is such a store.
In September 2007, Atlas hired Ahad, Javansalehi's husband, as the sales manager at Atlas' Hillsboro location."Sales manager" was, according to Fallazadeh's testimony, the "highest-ranking employee" position in that location at that time.Shortly thereafter, Atlas hired Lotfi and Sumrell (Javansalehi's son) to work under Ahad in the Hillsboro location.
In or around December 2008 or January 2009, Atlas moved Sumrell from his position in the Hillsboro location to a "roadshow" position, which required him to travel to Costco locations lacking a permanent Atlas presence and to spend one to two weeks selling rugs out of each such location.Effective approximately January 10, 2009, Atlas hired Javansalehi to fill the sales position left vacant by Sumrell's departure from the Hillsboro location.Defendants offerFallazadeh's uncontroverted testimony that Fallazadeh was aware of Javansalehi's marital relationship to Ahad at the time he made the decision to hire her.Atlas initially required Javansalehi to work six days per week at the Hillsboro location, at a monthly salary of $4,000.
Defendants offer Fallazadeh's testimony that, shortly after Javansalehi's hire, he began to suspect that Javansalehi and Ahad were colluding to reduce the number of hours each spent working in the Hillsboro location, while drawing pay from Atlas as though each were working the full number of hours Atlas required.Fallazadeh emphasizes that, because Atlas' business model assumed a low volume of high-profit sales, it was essential that salespeople be ready and available at all times to serve customers on those relatively infrequent occasions when customers entered the store.Fallazadeh testifies that Atlas' delivery employees would report the Javansalehis' unanticipated absence from the store when deliveries were made, and that when Fallazadeh would call Ahad's mobile phone to ask questions about inventory, Ahad would frequently claim to be unable to answer the question because he was serving a customer, and would only call back to respond 30 to 45 minutes later (that is, after the lapse of sufficient time to permit travel to the Hillsboro store).Defendants take the position that Ahad's proffered explanation for the need to call back is inherently implausible, in that a salesman generally will not take a phone call while serving a customer, but rather will usually wait until the customer has been served before taking or returning calls.
On a weekend day some time in the first three months of 2009, Fallazadeh made a "surprise visit" to the Hillsboro location, and found that Ahad was absent despite being scheduled to work.Javansalehi called Ahad and advised him that Fallazadeh was in the store.While Fallazadeh waited for Ahad to return, Fallazadeh observed Javansalehi serving customers.Defendants offer Fallazadeh's testimony that his observation of Javansalehi's sales methods established that she was not a "qualified" salesperson and that she was "bad" at selling rugs.Some time thereafter, Fallazadeh asked Lotfi to "keep an eye on the Javansalehis' attendance" and to report to him if they continued to miss work.
According to Fallazadeh's testimony, it was Atlas' practice to offer health insurance to those of its employees employed on a full-time basis, after they had worked for the company for three months.In or around April 2009, after Javansalehi had been working for Atlas for approximately three months, Javansalehi complained to Ahad that Atlas was not providing her with health benefits.Ahad subsequently brought the complaint to Ahad's attention.According to Fallazadeh's testimony, Fallazadeh had at that time already made a decision to reduce Javansalehi's work schedule to four days per week - making her ineligible for health insurance benefits - but had not yet either implemented the decision or communicated it to Javansalehi.It appears undisputed that Fallazadeh so advised Ahad at that time.Atlas subsequently reduced Javansalehi's work schedule to four days per week, and declined to provide her with health insurance benefits.
At some unspecified time during the tenure of Javansalehi's employment by Atlas, Javansalehi had a discussion with Lotfi regarding the fact that Lotfi (like Javansalehi) was not paid overtime.Javansalehi told Lotfi that his pay stubs constituted evidence that Atlas was violating federal wage and hour law by failing to pay Lotfi overtime.Javansalehi subsequently reported having had that conversation with Lotfi to her husband, Ahad, and to no other person.Ahad warned Javansalehi not to press the matter further and not to tell anyone else that the conversation had taken place.Neither Ahad nor Lotfi reported the conversation to any otherperson, and Fallazadeh did not learn that the conversation had taken place until after this action had been filed,
In late May 2009, Lotfi reported to Fallazadeh that the Javansalehis were both absent from the workplace despite being scheduled to work.Lotfi further advised Fallazadeh at that same time of his opinion that Javansalehi was a poor salesperson.At or around that time, Fallazadeh made the decision to terminate both Javansalehis' employment.It appears undisputed that the last day either...
To continue reading
Request your trial