Case Background
Jose Luis Sanchez Montejano and Manuel Acevedo Fernandez worked for over three decades as room service department cast members at the Grand Californian Hotel. Sanchez started his employment in 1984, and Acevedo began his career there in 1985. Both men maintained excellent work records and received consistent pay raises throughout their long careers. Their employment ended abruptly in January 2019 when the company terminated them. At the time of their firings, both Sanchez and Acevedo were 60-year-old men of Mexican descent.
Cause
The Plaintiffs alleged that their supervisors and managers systematically attempted to replace older workers with a younger workforce. Production Manager Rona Kay repeatedly made ageist remarks to Sanchez and Acevedo, regularly asking when they planned to retire, telling them they should leave, and threatening that the company would fire them if they did not retire. Kay and other coworkers also targeted the men with racist comments that disparaged Hispanic people and mocked their English proficiency. This ongoing workplace hostility caused both men severe stress, leading to physical and mental disabilities. Sanchez required emergency ambulance transportation from the workplace to get medical treatment, while Acevedo had to take multiple short leaves of absence to manage his health conditions.
The situation culminated in October 2018 when coworkers Diana Eid and Janae Bueno falsely accused Sanchez and Acevedo of viewing a pornographic video at work. The Plaintiffs maintained that these coworkers maliciously fabricated the report to give management a false excuse to discipline or fire them.
Injury
The Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, and a loss of personal and professional reputation. They also experienced a total loss of job benefits and earnings after dedicating more than 30 years of service to the company.
Damages Sought
Sanchez and Acevedo sought past and future compensatory damages for their financial losses, general damages for mental and emotional distress, and punitive damages due to the oppressive and malicious nature of the company's conduct. They also requested pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, and coverage for their legal fees and Court costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Jose Luis Sanchez Montejano and Manuel Acevedo Fernandez.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Carney R. Shegerian | Adriana Burga | Peter A. Javanmardi | Marc A. Holmquist | Arman Krpoyan
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Jeffrey Fischbach
Defendant(s): Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Rona Kay, Diana Eid, and Janae Bueno.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Emilio Gonzalez | Giancarlo Urey | Maria Arakelian
Experts for Defendant(s): Frank Zellers
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs argued that Disney and its management team used the unverified pornography allegations as a convenient cover-up to finalize a long-standing desire to eliminate older, highly paid employees. Counsel for the Plaintiffs highlighted that the company failed to conduct a meaningful or fair investigation into the incident before summarily firing the two veteran workers. The Plaintiffs pleaded to keep their jobs and protested their innocence, but management rejected their requests without any valid explanation. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs argued that company representatives maliciously spread false statements about the pornography incident to other employees and prospective employers, which forced the men to defend their reputations and explain the shameful false allegations during subsequent job interviews.
Defense
The Defendants filed a total denial of all claims, asserting that they did not cause any injury or financial damage to the Plaintiffs. Rona Kay and the corporate Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs failed to state facts sufficient to establish a legal violation. They contended that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations and that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy all administrative prerequisites before filing. The defense also argued that if the Plaintiffs suffered any damages, their own workplace misconduct and bad faith caused those outcomes. Regarding the defamation claims, the defense argued that any statements made by company staff were true, protected opinions, or shared without malice during ordinary business communications, making them legally privileged. They insisted that the firings resulted strictly from legitimate violations of company policy rather than any form of illegal discrimination or retaliation.
Jury Verdict
The trial took place before Judge Daniel S. Murphy in Department 32 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. After hearing the evidence and arguments, the jury returned verdicts for both Plaintiffs.
Jose Luis Sanchez Verdict
The jury officially determined that The Walt Disney Company acted as a direct or indirect employer of Jose Luis Sanchez. On the specific claims of liability, the jury found in favor of Sanchez on his causes of action for age discrimination, retaliation for opposing discrimination, age-based harassment, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. However, the jury ruled in favor of the Defendants regarding the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The jury rejected the defense argument that Disney would have fired Sanchez anyway for policy violations in the absence of discriminatory motives. Additionally, the jury found that Sanchez did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that managing agents acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, thereby ruling out punitive damages against The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.
During the second phase of the trial, the jury decided the financial compensation for Sanchez. They awarded him a total of $1,306,812 in damages. This total consisted of $435,604 for past economic losses, $653,406 for past non-economic losses, and $217,802 for future non-economic losses. The jury awarded $0 for future economic losses.
Manuel Acevedo Fernandez Verdict
The jury likewise found that The Walt Disney Company was an employer of Manuel Acevedo Fernandez. The jury ruled in favor of Fernandez on his claims for age discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Conversely, the jury ruled in favor of the Defendants on Fernandez's claims for retaliation, age-based harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Similar to the Sanchez ruling, the jury determined that Disney would not have discharged Fernandez at that time based solely on policy violations if the company had not been motivated by discrimination. The jury also found that Fernandez did not establish clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud by managing agents, which exempted both corporate entities from punitive damages.
Final Judgment
Judge Daniel S. Murphy signed the final judgments on January 22, 2026. The Court ordered Jose Luis Sanchez to recover his full award of $1,306,812 from The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. The Court ruled that Manuel Acevedo Fernandez was entitled to judgment against both corporate Defendants. Both Plaintiffs won the right to recover their Court costs and attorney fees under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, with the exact amounts to be determined by the Court at a later date. All recovery amounts will accumulate post-judgment interest at an annual rate of ten percent until paid.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
