McLaughlin & Stern San Francisco Secures Summary Judgment in Employment Case

On October 1, 2026, the Fresno County Superior Court granted a motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case brought by a former Vons employee against Safeway Inc.  Partner Bill Murphy and Associate Adrienne Ou of the McLaughlin & Stern San Francisco office handled the briefing on the motion. Frank Mejia v. Safeway Inc., Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 24CECG05067.

Plaintiff’s employment terminated after Safeway management determined that an investigation of a workplace altercation involving Plaintiff and a co-worker showed that Plaintiff had violated Safeway’s anti-workplace violence policy. Plaintiff’s union initially grieved the termination under the collective bargaining agreement, but later withdrew the grievance, conceding the Company had good cause to terminate Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff’s lawsuit challenged the grounds for his termination, arguing he did not violate Safeway policy and alleging instead that he was terminated because of his age, disability, a purported request for reasonable accommodation, his complaints about a co-worker’s harassment, among several other theories.  

The Plaintiff represented himself (although he appears to have had someone with legal training and/or AI assisting him in briefing). However, Plaintiff’s admissions under oath in deposition, his responses to written requests for admissions served on him in discovery, and declarations establishing Safeway’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory, non-retaliatory reason for terminating Plaintiff’s employment combined to persuade the Superior Court that Safeway was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. 

For example, although Plaintiff’s complaint alleged Safeway terminated his employment in retaliatory for requesting reasonable accommodations for an alleged disability, in deposition Plaintiff admitted he never made any request to anyone at Safeway or Vons for reasonable accommodation for any disability.  Although Plaintiff claimed the termination of his employment was based on his alleged disability, Plaintiff had admitted in response to a request for admission that Plaintiff’s alleged disability was not a factor in the decision to terminate his employment. And Plaintiff’s co-worker harassment claim based on age failed because Plaintiff had admitted in deposition that he never complained to anyone in Vons or Safeway management about co-worker harassment based on age (or any other impermissible basis).  The remainder of Plaintiff’s claims failed for similar reasons.

One of the takeaways from this decision is the importance of shifting the burden to Plaintiff to produce admissible evidence of unlawful discrimination by having strong management declarations setting forth the non-discriminatory basis for the termination.  Another takeaway is the importance of an early, thorough deposition of a Plaintiff to secure the admissions that make Plaintiff’s case unviable.  The Court’s complete decision can be found here. 

Bill and Adrienne (along with partner Carla Hartley and associate Matt Wu in the San Francisco office) advise clients concerning and litigate labor and employment matters in California.  They are also available to assist other lawyers in the firm in other jurisdictions with employment and related issues (e.g., severance and employment contract negotiations). Bill has also served for 15+ years as a neutral mediator in employment and other civil matters.