A California appellate court has refused to undo a lower court’s decision finding that Hooters of America must continue to fight former servers’ allegations that they were harassed and abused at work, ruling that Hooters hasn’t met its burden of showing that it was entitled to summary adjudication.
The Fourth Appellate District held Friday that the Riverside County Superior Court was correct in denying Hooters’ motion for summary adjudication of two of the claims in the suit brought by Arlene Garcia and Brandi Smith. Those claims allege Hooters was liable for aiding and abetting the other defendants in the suit — the restaurant’s other owners and operators, MS Foods LLC and Mahmood Saifie — and Hooters was liable for violations of unfair competition law.
The three-judge panel rejected Hooters’ argument that the trial court “misapplied the law” by ruling that a franchisor may be held liable for aiding and abetting under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The record “does not support [Hooters’] characterization of its motion for summary adjudication or the trial court’s order,” the panel said.
