Calif. court rejects service director's suit over firing

The California Court of Appeal rejected a suit by a former service and parts director who claimed a Thousand Oaks dealership group wrongly fired him after 13 years for raising concerns about workplace safety.

Ernest Sumen alleged that Silver Star Automotive Group, terminated him in 2012 for complaining about an unsafe hoist that he had red-tagged as out of service.

He worked at the group’s Mercedes-Benz and Jaguar dealerships, according to court filings.

Silver Star countered that its action was justified because Sumen failed to properly oversee repairs of equipment and remedy unsafe shop working conditions. It said technicians continued to use the tagged hoist, which he hadn’t repaired or replaced.

In its unanimous decision, the court ruled that Sumen didn’t provide enough evidence that Silver Star retaliated against him for reporting the defective hoist. It cited testimony from the group’s human resources director that she fired Sumen for not ensuring workplace safety, which the court said “he might have done by enforcing the hoist’s decommission.

“Sumen essentially admitted to the failure when he admitted he was unaware employees continued to use the defective hoist,” the court added.

Lee Sherman, a lawyer for Silver Star, called the ruling “righteous and fair.” Sumen’s lawyers didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A porter fired by a suburban Detroit dealership after he refused to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement can’t pursue discrimination and retaliation claims, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds also ruled that a former service technician who signed the agreement, which prohibits class-action arbitration, must arbitrate his individual claims and can’t pursue a class-action suit on behalf of employees of All Pro Nissan of Dearborn, Mich. However, the judge has agreed to reconsider that decision, according to plaintiffs’ lawyer Shereef Akeel.

According to the ruling, All Pro Nissan hired Brian Williams as a porter and Jay Howard as a mechanic in 2015.

A few months later, the store told all employees to sign an arbitration agreement in order to keep their jobs.

Williams refused and was fired. He claimed that the arbitration agreement denied his rights under federal anti-discrimination laws, and that the dealership discriminated on the basis of race and disability in rejecting him for a job as a lube tech.

Howard, who signed the agreement, claim-ed he was wrongfully fired after he complained about alleged race-based pay disparities in the service department. Both plaintiffs filed complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Edmunds upheld the class-action arbitration waiver, and said mandatory arbitration doesn’t undermine the EEOC’s enforcement powers in discrimination cases.

The dealership’s lawyer didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A Louisiana Ford dealership successfully appealed a $140,000-plus judgment against it involving a vehicle that it examined but didn’t repair.

Milo Nickel Jr. alleged that his new 2009 Ford Flex suffered problems with its Sync system, warning lights, indicators and air conditioning after crash-related repairs. The dealership where he bought the vehicle, now out of business, and an independent collision facility made those repairs.

Three years later, he brought the Flex to Bolton Ford in Lake Charles, reporting that it wouldn’t start. However, a technician found that it started every time.

The dealership made “multiple attempts to diagnose and fix the problems Nickel claimed to be having,” the Court of Appeal said. It recommended replacing the power distribution box and electrical wiring harness for $2,500, but Nickel refused and “effectively abandoned his vehicle at the dealership,” the court added.

“Bolton Ford inspected the car but did not repair it because plaintiff would not agree to pay for the repairs,” said dealership lawyer Robert Maxwell. Nickel sued Ford Motor Co. to rescind his purchase and sued Bolton Ford for negligent repair. He won at a non-jury trial.

But the appellate court said: “Considering that Bolton Ford never actually repaired anything because Nickel refused to pay for the repair, it is hard to fathom how it could be found to have negligently repaired Nickel’s Flex or was negligent for allowing the vehicle to remain in storage on its lot.”

Nickel’s lawyer, Kenneth Wright, called the dealership’s conduct “textbook for how to alienate future customers.” He said he has asked the Louisiana Supreme Court to review the appellate ruling.

What happens when a $200,000 luxury car needs $135,546 in crash repairs and the owner lacks full insurance? For the owner of a 2014 Aston Martin DB9, the response was a lawsuit against the British Columbia dealership that sold the vehicle and made some repairs, an independent body shop that did the bulk of the work, and the manufacturer.

Jessica Liu accused the defendants of breach of contract, collusion, and taking advantage of her “considerable personal wealth,” the fact that English isn’t her first language, and her lack of full insurance. The defendants denied wrongdoing, calling the suit before the British Columbia Supreme Court frivolous.

They filed a counterclaim for defamation and breach of contract.

Liu bought the DB9 from Aston Martin Vancouver in 2015 and damaged its right front in a single-car crash six months later, according to court filings. The dealership made some repairs, including new brake pads and rotors. It recommended that Burrard Autostrasse Collision, one of Canada’s only two authorized repair shops for the vehicle, handle the rest of the work.

According to court filings, Burrard’s estimate initially was $23,969, but increased to more than $130,000. Liu paid a $50,000 deposit but claimed she later canceled the repair authorization.

The shop completed the work and is holding the vehicle pending payment of the $85,586 balance and $200-a-day storage charges, court documents said.

The dealership’s lawyer declined to comment. Liu’s lawyer didn’t respond to a request for comment.