In this action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900 et seq., we conclude FEHA does not alter the common law’s rebuttable presumption that a corporation exists separately from an alleged alter ego. We will refer to that presumption as “the presumption of corporate separateness.” (F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 782, 797.)
Defendant and Respondent Kurt Schneiter is the sole member of nonparty MMart 1, LLC. Through that company, Schneiter owns Defendant and Respondent SR Restaurant Holdings Group, Inc. (SR Holdings), which, in turn, owns Defendant and Respondent SR Long Beach FD, Inc. (SR Long Beach). SR Holdings and SR Long Beach employed Plaintiff and Appellant, Ana Villasenor, as a restaurant hostess from December 2015 to April 2016.
At the first phase of a bifurcated trial, a jury found SR Long Beach and SR Holdings liable to Villasenor for sexual harassment and other FEHA violations. At the second phase, tried to the court, Villasenor alleged that Schneiter was liable as the corporate defendants’ alter ego. Applying the presumption of corporate separateness, the trial court found Villasenor failed to meet her burden to prove that the court should disregard the corporate defendants’ distinct identities. The trial court entered judgment for Schneiter, from which Villasenor appeals.
Villasenor does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that she failed to rebut the presumption of corporate separateness. Instead, she argues the trial court committed legal error by applying the presumption in the first instance. In Villasenor’s view, to effectuate the public policy behind FEHA, FEHA must be read to alter the presumption and establish a contrary presumption favoring alter ego liability in FEHA actions. We review the asserted legal error de novo. (Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, 652; Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 527 (Reid).
For reasons we will explain, we conclude FEHA does not alter the presumption of corporate separateness. Accordingly, we affirm.
There are 0 comments