Samantha N. Hoffman

Gender, race, age, sexual orientation and religion are common grounds for allegations of discrimination. But another class has been grabbing some headlines lately: the physically attractive.

This class comes under the heading of a "sex plus" discrimination case - the plus being attractiveness.

"They're not new, but there does seem to be, in the last year, a new wave," Hoffman said. "'I was fired because I'm too beautiful, too sexy.'"

Hoffman's currently defending Pfizer Inc. against allegations by an employee that she was denied a management position because of her looks and, when she complained, was demoted. Niemeyer v. Pfizer Inc., SACV11-1354 (C.D. Cal., filed Aug. 2, 2011).

"She claims that she is too shapely, too attractive, her hair is too long and too blonde, and that a less attractive brunette was promoted over her," Hoffman said.

While she has had discrimination cases based on age and race, this is the first she's had targeting looks, Hoffman said, adding that such allegations are not a protected category in California.

Under case law, unless there is direct evidence, she added, the plaintiff has to show comparisons backing up her claim.

In her motion for summary judgment, Hoffman wrote, "As plaintiff admits, her theory requires a showing that attractive men at Pfizer are not held to the same standard as attractive females yet plaintiff fails to cite to any such evidence."

Recently, her motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Among other significant matters, Hoffman scored a win for Golden State Foods in a statewide class-action complaint involving numerous wage-and-hour violations. Sanchez-Jimenez v. Golden State Foods Corp., 30-2011-00438775 (O.C. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 6, 2011).

- PAT BRODERICK