Settled and Closed - Yoshioka v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al.

This action alleges Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. (hereinafter “JCI”), Defendant Bobby Bains (hereinafter “Bains”), and Tina D’Agostin, (hereafter “D’Agostin”) engaged in the following illegal activities: (1) JCI discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex in violation of California Government Code section 12940(a) by engaging in a course of conduct intentionally designed to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex; (2) Defendants JCI and Bains harassed Plaintiff on the basis of her sex in violation of California Government Code section 12940(j) by engaging in a course of conduct intentionally designed to harass Plaintiff on the basis of her sex; (3) JCI failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring in the workplace in violation of California Government Code section 12940(k); (4) JCI retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of California Government Code section 12940(h) because Plaintiff made complaints about the discriminatory and harassing actions of Defendants, by, including but not limited to eliminating Plaintiff’s position while she was on stress leave due to the intolerable circumstances she suffered as a result of the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, which culminated in Plaintiff’s work place becoming so intolerable, that she had no choice but to resign, resulting in her constructive wrongful termination effective December 2, 2016; (5) JCI wrongfully terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff making complaints about the discriminatory and harassing actions of Defendants, in violation of California Government Code section 12940. Said discharge was unlawful and in violation of public policy, article I, section 8, of the California Constitution, and California Government Code section 12940 because said discharge was in retaliation for Plaintiff complaining about discriminatory and harassing actions; and (6) Defendants JCI and D’Agostin, in further retaliation for Plaintiff complaining about the actions of Bains and D’Agostin’s failure to take any steps to stop Bains’s actions, defamed Plaintiff, falsely stating to a third party that Plaintiff drank “excessively,” drank “four drinks to every one drank by” D’Agostin, “drank daily,” had drank this excessively for the entire time that D’Agostin had known Plaintiff, and that this excessive drinking gave rise to expense reimbursement issues.

The parties were able to reach a settlement of this matter on the eve of trial. The case closed on July 31, 2018.