And in any event, the operative complaint “on its face shows that plaintiffs alleged a combination of omissions and affirmative conduct as the basis for aiding and abetting liability,” according to the ruling.
Todd Harrison, counsel for Garcia and Smith, said Monday that the decision, “albeit a limited one, allows franchise employees to go against a franchisor under aiding and abetting and business and professions code.”
“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.
