De La Cruz v. Cal-Pac Sonoma CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 4, 2013A129889California9,910 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rivera, J.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Evidence at Trial1 Plaintiff began to work at the casino as a card dealer in September 2004, working the morning shift. She had not had regular work for a year, and had sole responsibility for her young son. With her earnings, she could afford to send her son to preschool. Plaintiff was a proficient dealer, and was known for taking extra duties. A floor supervisor, Mabel Conti, testified that plaintiff was conscientious and fairly reliable. Conti never saw her act inappropriately with a customer and never wrote her up for misconduct. It appears that at the time plaintiff worked at the casino, Cal-Pac Sonoma operated The 101 Casino, and that Cal-Pac Sonoma was a wholly owned subsidiary of Cal-Pac Group. After plaintiff stopped working for the casino, Cal-Pac Sonoma was acquired by new owners, and became separately owned and operated. 1. The Harassment At Christmastime in 2004, one of the floor supervisors at the casino, Bill Bundensen, was giving out gift bags. He gave plaintiff a bag and told her, ―I got you a candle . . . [T]his is my favorite smelling candle.‖ He went on, ―I want you to take it home and take a bubble bath and think of me.‖ Plaintiff…

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.