Court Rules in Favor of Safelite in Discrimination Lawsuit

For what it said are reasons of inconsistency and lack of substantial evidence, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has granted Safelite’s motion for summary judgment against terminated employee, Mauro Castillo Vidal. Vidal had filed a suit against the company after his termination in 2010.

Vidal, who was employed as a warehouse driver from May 2007 to July 2010, alleged that Safelite management began treating him unfairly after his wife, Christina filed a separate suit against the company. He also alleged that management would call minorities’ racial slurs and alleged that his employment was terminated for raising concerns about the matter.

Safelite denied all claims, alleging that Vidal appeared to have lied after interviewing individuals who Vidal claimed the racial comments were directed towards. The company stated that this incident was in violation of its ethics policy and the reason for Vidal’s termination.

While Safelite did affirm that management met with Vidal with regard to his wife’s lawsuit, they stated that there was no evidence to suggest that Vidal came to any harm from this meeting. The company claims that Vidal’s allegations are inconsistent and lack proper detail.

The court agreed that Vidal does not have sufficient evidence of racial or retaliatory discrimination, granting Safelite’s motion for summary judgment April 4, 2017.

“For the reasons discussed above, summary judgment is granted as to Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims and denied as to Plaintiff’s race discrimination and retaliation claims,” the court ruled.

This entry was posted in glassBYTEs Original Story and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *