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

Maria Elizabeth Castaneda v. Brandy Norwood

Published: Mar. 31, 2023 | Result Date: Nov. 24, 2022 | Filing Date: Mar. 25, 2022 |

Settlement –  $40,000

Judge

Theresa M. Traber

Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kevin A. Lipeles
(Lipeles Law Group APC)


Defendant

Barbra A. Arnold
(Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell LLP)


Facts

Maria Elizabeth Castaneda aka Elizabeth Juarez began working as a housekeeper for famous singer Brandy Norwood from September 2002 to February 25, 2022, at Norwood's business located at 23463 Park Colombo Dr., Calabasas, California 91302 for $125 a day. Her responsibilities included cooking, cleaning, and doing laundry. Castaneda is currently over 60 years old. On March 25, 2022, Castaneda filed a labor lawsuit against Norwood, seeking compensatory damages and specific relief with interest for alleged discrimination based on age and various Labor Code violations. In particular, she requested an award of $250 in compensatory damages, $97,500 in consequential, $250,000 in general damages, $182 in minimum wage statutory damages, $4,000 in inaccurate wage statement statutory damages, $23,114.46 in compensation for rest and meal period denials, and $3,750 in waiting time penalties, as well as prejudgment interest and punitive and exemplary damages.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendant wrongfully terminated her due to her older age and failed to pay plaintiff for the last two day's wages. Moreover, plaintiff contended that as a general rule, plaintiff was not permitted to take an uninterrupted 10-minute rest break in the afternoon, nor was she permitted to take an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period break for every 5 hours worked, nor a second uninterrupted 30-minute meal period break for every 10 hours worked. Plaintiff argued that defendant failed to provide her with itemized wage statements that properly and accurately itemized the number of hours plaintiff worked and the effective regular pay rates and effective overtime pay rates.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

Brandy Norwood agreed to pay $40,000 to settle the case.


#140497

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

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