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.
