 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chopra v. Advo10/13/2004
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
ADVO, Inc. (ADVO) appeals after a jury verdict found in favor of Naveen Chopra (Chopra), Amarjit Grewal (Grewal), Surgit Kaur (Kaur), Sucha Leader (Leader), and Veena Singh (Singh) on their claim of discrimination based on national origin. ADVO contends that substantial evidence did not support the verdict and the court erred in giving BAJI No. 12.01 without ADVO's proposed modification. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
ADVO prepares and distributes direct mail advertising on behalf of its corporate clients. It has 19 production facilities across the country; this case involves its facility in Newark, California (Newark facility). ADVO's Newark facility had regular hourly workers and temporary workers provided by a staffing agency.
Madelina Williams (Williams) was the regional director of human resources for the northwestern region, which includes the Newark facility. She began working at ADVO on November 1, 1999. Her job duties included establishing and implementing human resources policies.
Wendy Roe (Roe) was the human resources manager at the Newark facility until her employment was terminated in February 2000. Roe had remarked to Williams that some of the temporary employees at the Newark facility who were not from East India were feeling excluded by the East Indian employees.
In March 2000, Williams hired Donna Perry (Perry) as the new human resources manager for the Newark facility. Perry testified that Williams told her at her hiring interview that the production numbers at the Newark facility were low and "that was a big issue." Williams also reported to her that the "ethnic makeup of the staff sometimes could be an issue." Perry was aware that 85 to 90 percent of the staff were East Indian, and she noted that she "possibly" was told this at her initial interview. Perry stated that Williams had discussed with her "the lack of diversity in hiring, and [that] diversity is an important aspect of any human resources department." She testified that Williams had expressed concern that temporary employees had complained about cliquishness among the East Indian production workers. When deposed, Perry asserted that Williams told her to "get a variety of people in age group, group-wise, racial breakdown . . . ."
Perry testified that Williams expressed concern about the staffing agency ADVO was using because it was primarily recruiting employees of East Indian national origin. Williams reportedly stated that the agency relied on referrals of people who were already working there, and they tended to be East Indian. Perry explained that this "staffing agency was an East Indian owned or operated agency."
Perry also testified that Williams told her about a prior incident involving East Indian employees. Williams told Perry that years ago, when the production facility was located in Union City, a group of East Indian production workers had slowed down as a result of a working condition issue. Counsel asked Perry whether "[Williams] indicated to you . . . that her feelings that if there was any kind of group action by the East Indian workers on her watch, that the best way to deal with it would be prompt and strong discipline . . . ?" Perry responded, "Yes."
Chopra, Grewal, Kaur, Leader, and Singh (collectively plaintiffs) had worked at ADVO for a number of years. All of t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|