Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC

Docket NumberF081786
Decision Date14 September 2022
Citation83 Cal.App.5th 320,299 Cal.Rptr.3d 433
Parties Gurdip KAUR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FOSTER POULTRY FARMS LLC, Defendant and Respondent.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Bahar Law Office and Sarvenaz Bahar, Los Angeles; Law Office of Dean B. Gordon and Dean B. Gordon, Fresno, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Waxman and Achermann and James J. Achermann, San Francisco; Gearheart and Sonnicksen and Justin C. Sonnicksen for California Applicants' Attorneys Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jesselyn Friley, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Los Angeles, Kathryn Eidmann for Public Counsel as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Wanger Jones Helsley, Michael S. Helsley, John P. Kinsey, Fresno, and Amber N. Less, for Defendant and Respondent.

SMITH, J.

In this employment matter, plaintiff and appellant Gurdip Kaur (Kaur) appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, defendant and respondent Foster Poultry Farms LLC (Foster Farms), on her claims of discrimination based on disability and race/national origin, and retaliation, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ( Gov. Code, §§ 12900 et seq ) and Labor Code section 1102.5. The principal issue on appeal is whether a decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying Kaur's claim for disability discrimination under Labor Code section 132a has res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in the instant action. For purposes of the instant matter, we conclude it does not. The trial court's grant of summary judgment was based on giving collateral estoppel effect to the WCAB decision. We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complaint

Kaur filed the complaint in this matter on October 3, 2017. The complaint asserted six causes of action against Foster Farms. The first five causes of action arose under FEHA: (1) discrimination on the basis of race/nationality and disability; (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (3) failure to engage in an interactive process; (4) failure to take all reasonable measures to prevent discrimination; and (5) retaliation for asserting FEHA rights. The sixth cause of action asserted in the complaint was retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

Prior to initiating the instant lawsuit, on July 22, 2016, Kaur filed a petition against Foster Farms with the WCAB, asserting claims under Labor Code section 132a. Kaur's Labor Code section 132a claims against Foster Farms were litigated in an administrative hearing over three days, spread over the course of a year, before workers' compensation Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Debra Sandoval. The ALJ issued her ruling on July 9, 2019, denying Kaur's petition. (We refer to the ruling interchangeably as the WCAB decision/opinion or the workers' compensation ALJ's decision/ruling/opinion.)1

Thereafter, Foster Farms amended its answer in the instant case to assert an affirmative defense that all of Kaur's disability-related claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel based on the workers' compensation ALJ's ruling on, and denial of, Kaur's Labor Code section 132a petition.

Foster Farms then moved, on the basis of this affirmative defense, for summary judgment. More specifically, Foster Farms sought summary adjudication of Kaur's disability-related and other claims in the instant matter based on res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, in light of the WCAB's adjudication of Kaur's Labor Code section 132a petition. Foster Farms also sought summary adjudication of Kaur's cause of action for discrimination based on race/national origin on grounds it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

In connection with its motion for summary judgment, Foster Farms requested the superior court to take judicial notice of (1) Kaur's WCAB petition, (2) the minutes and a summary of evidence (there was no reporter's transcript) from the three-day trial before the WCAB; and (3) the WCAB opinion.

Kaur opposed Foster Farms' motion for summary judgment on grounds that Foster Farms had not established its affirmative defense of collateral estoppel/res judicata, Kaur's race/national origin discrimination claim was timely, and there were numerous triable issues of material fact.

In addition, Kaur objected to Foster Farms' request for judicial notice of the WCAB records on various grounds, including the contention that the trial court could not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual assertions reflected in these records.

The trial court granted Foster Farms' request for judicial notice and also granted summary judgment in favor of Foster Farms, holding that the WCAB opinion barred Kaur's disability-related and other claims under FEHA and Labor Code section 1102.5, and that Kaur's race/nationality discrimination action was time barred. This appeal followed.

FACTS
Kaur's Work History

Kaur started working at Foster Farms in 2001 and worked for the company for nearly 15 years. For the last eight years of her employment, from 2008 to 2016, Kaur worked as a yield monitor at Foster Farms' Cherry Avenue plant (Cherry plant), a chicken processing facility.

Kaur's Workplace Injury in April 2013

On April 24, 2013, Kaur slipped at work while wearing company-issued rubber boots; she broke her left wrist.

Kaur was required to wear slip-resistant rubber boots provided by Foster Farms for her work as a yield monitor. Kaur testified at deposition that for two weeks prior to her accident, she "kept asking" her supervisor, Cheng Vang, for new boots because her boots were "slippery."

On the day of her accident, Kaur first slipped at approximately 8:30 a.m. She went to Vang and asked for new boots. Vang told her to get a new pair of boots from Rosa in the supply room. Rosa told Kaur that Kaur's boots were only six-months old and did not give Kaur new boots.

Kaur returned to work and slipped a second time that day but was able to prevent a fall by grabbing onto a coworker. This time she complained about her boots to another supervisor, Joe Wendy, the supervisor of the supply room. Wendy went to get new boots for Kaur but was told by Rosa that boots in Kaur's size were unavailable. Kaur believed Rosa was lying, as she had not mentioned the lack of availability to Kaur earlier that day. Approximately four hours after she talked to Wendy, Kaur slipped again. This time, she fell to the ground and broke her left wrist.

Kaur had ongoing problems in getting supplies from Rosa. Kaur is originally from India, and she and other Indian employees at the plant frequently encountered difficulties in obtaining work-related gear from Rosa. Kaur had heard that Rosa, who is Filipino, would readily provide supplies for other workers. Kaur believed Rosa refused Kaur's requests for supplies because Kaur is Indian.

Kaur complained about Rosa to Victor Moreno, the labor relations manager for Foster Farms. She told him Rosa refused to give her and other Indian employees gear and supplies they needed for work, because they are Indian. Moreno acknowledged there was a problem, " We see a lot of complaints against her, what can we do? You guys can get the supply from another person.’ " Kaur and other Indian workers would try, whenever possible, to get their supplies from Sarah who worked in the supply department on another shift. However, they often had no choice but to go to Rosa as they needed new supplies every day, sometimes multiple times a day, especially gloves.

After Surgery for her Broken
Wrist, Kaur had Physical Restrictions

Kaur had surgery to address her broken wrist and thereafter was restricted in the use of her left hand and wrist for work. The work restrictions included no heavy work and no pulling, pushing, pinching, or lifting heavy weights with her left hand.

Kaur returned to work at Foster Farms in June 2013 and went back to her regular position as a yield monitor, with no modification in her duties; she used both hands in performing her yield monitor duties.2 Kaur told her supervisor, Cheng Vang, that she needed light duty given the restrictions on using her left hand; Kaur told Vang, "I need light duty, change my job, I can't carry heavy stuff." Vang told her, "If you can't do the work, you should just quit." Kaur responded, " ‘I need my job, I didn't get hurt at home, I got hurt here at work and it's because you didn't change my shoes.’ " Kaur was left in tears.

Kaur reported Vang's comment to Moreno, the labor relations manager. Moreno told her, " ‘Don't worry, I will take care of it.’ " Moreno did not get back to Kaur about her complaint but apparently spoke with Vang because Vang came to Kaur later that day and told her to let him know of any problems she encountered. Vang even moved a bin for Kaur that weighed 159 pounds and was too heavy for Kaur to move herself. This was the only time that Vang helped her. Kaur said she encountered issues all day because she could only work with one hand. But thereafter, on an ongoing basis, Vang ignored her requests for accommodation and basically stopped talking to her. In addition, on December 27, 2013, Vang and another manager, Pang Xiong, terminated Kaur for an alleged violation of the company's lunch break policy, ostensibly based on video evidence. Although Kaur repeatedly requested to see the video, she was never shown it or given a copy. Kaur filed a grievance through her union, taking issue with her termination; she was reinstated in March 2014.

Kaur continually confronted problems working as a yield monitor, but she persevered to provide for her family.

Foster Farms Underwent a Restructuring and Kaur was Terminated in June 2016

In May 2016, Foster Farms announced it would undergo a restructuring that would affect its Cherry and Belgravia chicken processing plants. The Cherry and Belgravia plants were located four miles apart. As part of the restructuring, the Cherry plant would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 books & journal articles
  • Mcle Self-study: the Top Cases of 2022
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 37-1, January 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...20, 2022).22. 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.23. 142 S.Ct. 2455 (2022).24. 36 F.4th 919 (9th Cir. 2022).25. 74 Cal. App. 5th 908 (2022).26. 83 Cal. App. 5th 320 (2022).27. 83 Cal. App. 5th 543 (2022).28. Cal. Gov't Code § 12965(c)(3).29. 82 Cal. App. 5th 105 (2022).30. Id. at 111.31. 28 F. 4th 989......
  • California Employment Law Notes
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 36-6, November 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...federal immigration law.WORKERS' COMP DETERMINATION DOES NOT GOVERN OUTCOME OF DISCRIMINATION CASE Kaur v. Foster Poultry Farms LLC, 83 Cal. App. 5th 320 (2022)Gurdip Kaur sued her former employer, Foster Farms, for discrimination based on disability and race/national origin, retaliation an......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT