Garcia

Garcia v. Pacific Sunwear Stores CA2/7

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 11, 2025B331888California5,653 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feuer, J.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Garcia’s Complaint1 On November 21, 2022 Garcia filed a complaint against PACSUN alleging 12 causes of action, including for retaliation in

We grant PACSUN’s unopposed motion to augment the record to include Garcia’s complaint, PACSUN’s motion to compel arbitration, Garcia’s opposition, PACSUN’s reply, Garcia’s response to the reply, and PACSUN’s reply in further response, which were filed in the trial court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).) According to PACSUN, it inadvertently failed to designate the documents, instead only designating the case register and trial court’s final order.

2 violation of the FMLA; race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and related claims under FEHA; and misclassification and wage and hour claims under the Labor Code. The complaint alleged Garcia began working for PACSUN in April 2016 as a human resources (HR) operations specialist. After her direct manager, Alex de Anda, left in 2021, Garcia reported directly to Hope Milligan, who started working at PACSUN in 2019. Garcia alleged Milligan mistreated her and refused to hire replacements for de Anda and another HR employee who left in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.