Guerrero

Guerrero v. Whole Foods Market Cal. CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 10, 2021B305799California5,343 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff’s Employment as a Whole Foods Meat Cutter Plaintiff began working for Whole Foods in 1988 and, beginning in 2006, his job was that of a meat cutter. In 2018, Plaintiff was working Whole Foods’ Newport Beach store after transferring there in 2016 from Whole Foods’ West Los Angeles location. Plaintiff was 57 years old. While working as a meat cutter, Plaintiff was repeatedly trained on Whole Foods’ meat and food handling policies. Plaintiff accordingly understood that commingling of different species of meat and poultry products during cutting and grinding was prohibited by Whole Foods for a number of reasons, including public health concerns.

1 A meat product with commingled types of meat may be hazardous, especially where the customer is unaware of the presence of more than one type. For instance, if two different types of meat are commingled without a customer’s knowledge,

2 To prevent meat commingling, Whole Foods’ “Grinding Policy/Guidelines,” a document Plaintiff reviewed as recently as 2017 when he underwent retraining, specified that meat grinders must be cleaned and sanitized “between EVERY grind . . . . It is very important that all meat…

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.