FOLLOW US

"The conduct of Mr. Saifie in this case is vile and horrendous," Harrison told Law360. "Hooters of America (franchisor) was made aware of the conduct and yet nothing was ever done by them to protect our clients. We are looking forward to a jury holding them accountable in the near future." Hooters didn't immediately respond to a request for comment late Monday. Garcia and Smith claim in their suit that they were subjected to abuse and harassment in violation of the FEHA. Late last year, the lower court partially sided with Hooters, granting a motion for summary adjudication in favor of the restaurant with respect to several of the claims. But it refused to grant summary adjudication on two others, and that's the decision Hooters challenged on appeal. Specifically, Hooters argued the aiding and abetting claim "rests solely on [Hooters'] alleged inaction," but there aren't any allegations in the complaint supporting the theory that Hooters encouraged or supported the alleged FEHA violations. But the Fourth District said Hooters never argued the inadequacy of the operative complaint in its moving papers. Given the circumstances, the panel said it sees "no basis" to find the trial court abused its discretion in declining to consider that argument, it said. The panel noted that Garcia and Smith allege Hooters provided MS Foods with training, policies and procedures, legal, administrative, human resources and investigatory support during its quest to avoid liability. They also claim Hooters refused to individually investigate complaints of harassment or retaliation and refused to exercise its rights to revoke Saifie and MS Foods' license as a franchisee despite its ability to do that, the appellate court said.

Hooters Server Harassment Suit

At this stage in the litigation, Hooters' burden was to present evidence allowing a jury to conclude that it lacked the necessary knowledge of an FEHA violation. "Yet all [Hooters] did as the moving party was present the declaration of its franchise business director stating that he had received Garcia's complaints and initiated an investigation into her allegations," the panel said. Showing that Hooters had knowledge of certain facts doesn't mean Hooters has shown that it lacked knowledge of other, unmentioned facts, it said. "Likewise, the record does not show that HOA presented any evidence to negate each theory of substantial assistance alleged in the operative complaint," the panel said. Thus, the trial court didn't err in denying summary adjudication on that claim, the panel said.