Davidson

Davidson v. Red Robin International CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 4, 2015C069041California7,178 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On review of summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the losing party on summary judgment. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 884, fn. 5.) On June 2, 2009, plaintiff began working as a server at Red Robin’s restaurant in Citrus Heights. He previously worked at Red Robin locations in Concord and Irvine and wanted to work at the Roseville/Creekside Red Robin, which was closer to his Auburn home, but was told they could only offer him limited hours. Plaintiff was aware of Red Robin’s antiharassment policy, which invited employees to initiate a complaint by talking to an immediate supervisor or manager, calling the Home Office, or reporting it on a website provided by Red Robin. In June of 2009, Hernandez was an assistant manager at the Citrus Heights Red Robin. She supervised hosts, bussers, and food expediters, while a different assistant manager, Amber Parker, supervised servers such as plaintiff. However, Hernandez had some supervisory duties over servers, e.g., she checked that they arrived for work on time, dressed appropriately, and she determined when they could leave based on the amount of sales.…

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.