Jiffy Lube Employee Files Suit Claiming FEHA Violations

An African-American Jiffy Lube employee filed suit claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress and Unruh Act violations. The claims were made against a non-employer company and the representative they sent to present a new product/service during a training session to Jiffy Lube employees.

The Case: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

The Court: California Court of Appeal

The Case No.: E073174

The Plaintiff: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

African-American employee Plaintiff Robert Smith, an African-American employee at Jiffy Lube, attended a presentation for Jiffy Lube employees to learn about a new product by Defendant BP Lubricants USA, Inc. (“BP”). A BP company representative led the presentation.

The Incident: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

The BP Lubricants USA Inc. representative allegedly made racially offensive comments to the plaintiff in front of his coworkers during the training presentation. Approximately 50 Jiffy Lube employees were in attendance (some at the supervisory level) when the BP representative allegedly made racially charged comments including comparing the plaintiff’s voice to Barry White, indicating the couldn’t see the plaintiff, and asking other attendees how they would feel if the plaintiff’s “big banana hands” were working on their vehicles. According to Smith, all the employees in attendance with the exception of other African-American employees laughed at the inappropriate comments (including three of the plaintiff’s own supervisors).

The Case: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

Smith sued BP and the individual company representative for harassment (in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)) and racial discrimination (in violation of the Unruh Act). While BP is not the plaintiff’s employer, Smith argues that they violated FEHA’s prohibition on racial harassment in the workplace when they “aided and abetted” the Jiffy Lube employees and supervisors’ discriminatory and harassing behavior. Smith also sued the BP representative who allegedly made the offensive statements to the group for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The Defendant in the case demurred and the trial court sustained without leave to amend. Smith appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the order holding that Smith failed to allege any facts suggesting concerted activity between the named entities (BP, the BP representative, and Jiffy Lube) to violate FEHA, which is required for non-employer liability for “aiding and abetting” workplace discrimination under FEHA. However, the appeals court reversed the trial court’s orders in relation to the IIED and Unruh Act claims.

The Court’s Findings: Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc.

The court held that the BP representative’s actions were intentional and unreasonable and likely to result in illness through mental distress, which rendered the actions extreme and outrageous as an IIED claim requires. The appeals court also found that Smith plausibly alleged that the representative was acting as the business establishment while offering the training materials through the presentation since he was acting on behalf of BP Lubricants, a business generally open to the public. The court also allowed that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the BP representative treated Smith differently during the course of the presentation by targeting only him with racist comments, which violates the Unruh Act. This case is a reminder that businesses can be subject to Unruh Act liability in relation to training programs or presentations even if the presentation or training itself is not open to the public.

If you need help with employment law violations in the workplace, get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.