Case: Borrego v. Raley’s Family of Fine Stores

15-177687 | California state trial court

Filed Date: April 9, 2015

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 9, 2015, two pregnant workers brought this action in the Superior Court of California, Sacramento Division, against Raley’s Family of Fine Stores and unnamed individual defendants. The named plaintiffs, who had obtained right-to-sue letters from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and who were represented by both public interest and private counsel, alleged that Raley’s had denied them reasonable pregnancy accommodations, including roles that did not involve heavy …

On April 9, 2015, two pregnant workers brought this action in the Superior Court of California, Sacramento Division, against Raley’s Family of Fine Stores and unnamed individual defendants. The named plaintiffs, who had obtained right-to-sue letters from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and who were represented by both public interest and private counsel, alleged that Raley’s had denied them reasonable pregnancy accommodations, including roles that did not involve heavy lifting or mopping, and had instead reduced their working hours and benefits or forced them to go on leave. The plaintiffs sought class certification, alleging that Raley’s violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945(a), and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. The plaintiffs sought damages for emotional distress, lost wages and employment benefits, and requested that the court grant restitution and compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiffs along with declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was designated “complex,” meaning that it would be handled with special care by the court system and the presiding judge. Judge Alan G. Perkins was assigned to the case.

This Clearinghouse has little information about this state case because it has few documents available for public viewing.

Raley’s filed a Case Management Statement on December 22, 2015, declaring that the parties were meeting and conferring regarding discovery and class certification. The parties continued to meet, holding case management conferences throughout 2016.

On September 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an order approving an opt-out notice to putative class members. The defendants filed a motion in opposition on September 7, 2016, along with their own motion for a protective order. The parties disputed these orders over the next couple of months, culminating in hearings on the motions on November 4, 2016 and November 9, 2016. On January 6, 2017, Judge Perkins approved the plaintiffs’ opt-out notice.

On September 6, 2017, after several more months of case management conferences, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order to vacate the class certification, and Judge Perkins issued an order to that effect on September 8, 2017. However, discovery disputes continued as the plaintiffs sought to compel documents and further responses to interrogatories.

On July 10, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order giving the plaintiffs leave the file a first amended complaint, which Judge Perkins granted on July 12. The plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on July 18, still seeking class certification. On August 16, 2018, the defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

The parties conducted a hearing November 1, 2018, focusing primarily on the defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiffs’ claims and on the defendants’ request to strike the plaintiffs’ first complaint from the record. The hearing continued on December 7, and on December 14, the court ordered several documents sealed at the defendants’ request.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on December 17, 2018, and the defendants moved to strike that complaint as well on January 22, 2019. The court and parties struggled to schedule a hearing on the class certification motion, rescheduling the hearing several times throughout 2019 as the parties continued to meet. On October 29, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement, continuing to request an extension of time to bring the case to trial.

Finally, on January 17, 2020, Judge Perkins issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. Under the settlement, Raley’s agreed to pay $2.8 million to class members, including attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiffs’ attorneys have established a class action website, avaliable here, seeking out putative class members who may be entitled to compensation.

The case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Elizabeth Helpling (3/10/2020)


Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Diaz, Marisa (California)

Liu, Jennifer Lin (California)

Reisch, Jennifer Abby (California)

Sagafi, Jahan C (California)

Sun, Relic (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Coyle, Daniel J (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Diaz, Marisa (California)

Liu, Jennifer Lin (California)

Reisch, Jennifer Abby (California)

Sagafi, Jahan C (California)

Sun, Relic (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Coyle, Daniel J (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Civil Case Details

Borrego v. Raley’s Family of Fine Stones

Jan. 17, 2020 Docket

Complaint for Damages and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

April 9, 2015 Complaint

Motion for Order Provisionally Certifying Settlement Class and Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement

None Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 9, 2015

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Pregnant employees who were denied accommodations by Raley’s Family of Fine Stores

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Outten & Golden

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling

Defendants

Raley's Family of Fine Stores, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

State Anti-Discrimination Law

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 2,800,000

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Accommodation / Leave

Discrimination-basis:

Pregnancy discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female