This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Age Discrimination
Wrongful Termination

Luis Montoya v. Pacific Air Balance Inc.

Published: Aug. 4, 2007 | Result Date: Apr. 24, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC352093 Settlement –  $250,000

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Stephen M. Harris
(Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris PC)

Michael S. Duberchin


Defendant

Daniel H. Lee

Martin K. Deniston
(Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP)


Facts

Plaintiff Luis Montoya worked for defendant Pacific Air Balance Inc. for over 40 years, until July 2005 when he was fired at the age of 68. The plaintiff worked as a floor supervisor from 1982 until he was fired.

Shortly before the plaintiff was fired, many of his duties and responsibilities were given to Danny Vasquez, another Pacific Air Balance employee approximately 30 years younger than the plaintiff. Moreover, even though Vasquez was also a supervisor, Pacific Air Balance paid him overtime while refusing to pay the plaintiff overtime.

During the deposition of the person most qualified at Pacific Air Balance, the plaintiff's immediate supervisor, William Mair, testified that he decided to fire the plaintiff because Vasquez would have more "longevity" and would be able to carry on with the company after Mair retired.

Pacific Air Balance contended that Vasquez was more familiar with new products than the plaintiff, and was more willing to learn these new products. However, the plaintiff's performance evaluation consistently praised his knowledge of products, technological know how, and willingness to adapt to changing needs. In fact, he was found to have exceeded job requirements. There were no written warnings or performance criticisms of the plaintiff regarding new products.

Pacific Air Balance argued its decision was justified based on lack of work. However, it hired additional personnel at the same time it fired the plaintiff, and the company continued to pay employees for overtime work after plaintiff's termination. Pacific Air Balance did shut down the plant where the plaintiff worked shortly before trial. However, Vasquez was offered and accepted a job at another subsidiary of the parent company, which operated the plant where the plaintiff had been employed.

The plaintiff claimed damages for loss of income, and emotional distress damages based on depression and an anxiety disorder.

Settlement Discussions

The defendant served statutory offer to compromise for $150,000.

Result

The parties had an early mediation with Judge Enrique Romero, which did not result in a settlement. The case ultimately settled at an MSC for $250,000.


#101272

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390