Carothers

Carothers v. Carothers Disante & Freudenberger CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 25, 2022B313290California3,277 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baker, J.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Carothers’s Tenure at CDF Our recitation of the facts concerning Carothers’s tenure at CDF is as alleged in his operative complaint. Carothers, a Black man, became an equity partner in CDF in the early 2000s.1 In 2017, Carothers began suffering from health issues. In or around the fall of 2018, Carothers obtained a diagnosis for his condition, and learned it would require surgery. When he disclosed his symptoms to CDF, he received comments like, “‘That’s what happens when you get old.’”

1 When Carothers joined the firm, CDF stood for Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger. In 2011, CDF changed its name to “Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger” in recognition of Carothers’s contributions to the firm.

2 Later that year, CDF did not give Carothers his year-end payout, which typically represented about 40 percent of his annual compensation. When asked why, CDF said it withheld the compensation because one of Carothers’s clients, for whom he achieved a favorable result at trial in Vista, had only paid about half of its bill (the Vista matter). Carothers had not seen a payout withheld due to a collections issue before. Carothers was out of the office on medical leave from…

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.