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
Wrongful Termination
Age Discrimination

Pablo A. Alcantar v. Foothill Ranch, Inc., and Luis Parra

Published: Oct. 25, 1997 | Result Date: Aug. 4, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 275483 –  $0

Judge

Gary B. Tranbarger

Court

Riverside Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas A. Brill


Defendant

Roland C. Bainer
(Clayson, Bainer & Saunders)


Experts

Plaintiff

Tamorah Hunt
(technical)

Facts

On Jan. 17, 1995, defendant Foothill Ranch, Inc., laid off four irrigators/farm laborers employed at its main ranch. Plaintiff, Pablo A. Alcantar, one of the four irrigators, was the oldest of the four individuals laid off. He was 61-years old. The four were told that they would be recalled for employment when the defendant employer needed for their services. The plaintiff and the three other irrigators were not subsequently recalled for further employment. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on wrongful termination and emotional distress theories of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff made no settlement demand. The defendant made an offer of compromise for $2,500.

Specials in Evidence

$8,000 $19,000

Damages

The plaintiff reports that no figure was requested for damages for emotional distress.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed emotional distress damages.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and eight months after the case was filed. An arbitration was held on Feb. 4, 1997 before Mac Ray Fisher, an attorney with Fisher, Weathers & Geeting resulting in a finding for defendant. The plaintiff requested a trial de novo. Per plaintiff's counsel, the plaintiff failed to state at his deposition that he had been told he was being laid off because of his age. At his deposition, the plaintiff stated he was told he was chosen for lay off because there was no work for him.

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

10-2, 9-3 (per plaintiff)

Length

six days


#79767

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

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