Hector Carreon worked as an order selector at U.S. Foodservice’s La Mirada distribution facility. He alleged a pattern of sexual harassment at the warehouse, including a 2018 incident where a coworker tried to grab his genitals and made threatening remarks, and repeated threats from coworker Jesus Torres to sexually assault him in the freezer. Carreon claimed he reported these incidents to managers and his union representative, but was met with indifference or dismissive comments.
In July 2019, after being reinstated from an earlier termination through a union grievance, Carreon signed a “last chance agreement” that released US Foods from liability for all prior employment claims. About a month later, on August 29, 2019, Torres physically confronted Carreon in the frozen foods warehouse — pulling him off his pallet jack, throwing him onto shelves, and repeatedly thrusting his groin toward Carreon’s face while coworkers watched and filmed. Afterward, Carreon followed Torres around the aisle for several minutes, unplugged his pallet jack, and demanded he delete video that had been posted to Snapchat. US Foods reviewed surveillance footage the next morning, characterized the entire episode as workplace violence, and terminated both Carreon and Torres.
Carreon filed a ten-count complaint including sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and several intentional tort claims. US Foods moved for summary adjudication, and the trial court granted the motion on all claims except sexual harassment and failure to prevent sexual harassment. Those two claims went to a jury trial in September 2022. The jury found for Carreon, awarding $200,000 in emotional distress damages and $1 million in punitive damages. US Foods then moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on punitive damages and for a new trial based on alleged instructional error regarding the last chance agreement’s release. The court denied the new trial motion but granted JNOV on punitive damages, striking the $1 million award. Carreon sought roughly $1.3 million in attorney fees; the court awarded approximately $350,000.
The Court of Appeal affirmed in full in the unpublished case of Carreon v. U.S. Foodservice – B326837 consolidated with B327540, B330590 (March 2026) -upholding the summary adjudication, the jury instructions, the striking of punitive damages, and the attorney fee award.
The court held that US Foods carried its burden of showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Carreon: violation of its zero-tolerance workplace violence policy. The burden then shifted to Carreon to show pretext, but the court found he offered only his subjective belief that he was not violent, without evidence tying the termination decision to discriminatory or retaliatory motive. The court distinguished cases like *Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc.* (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297 and *Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc.* (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, where plaintiffs presented substantial evidence undermining their employers’ stated reasons. On the whistleblower retaliation claim, the court applied the framework from *Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.* (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703 and found Carreon failed to show his complaints were a contributing factor in his termination. The tort claims were barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity because US Foods promptly suspended and fired Torres, negating any ratification theory.
The court found no reversible error in instructing the jury that it could consider pre-release conduct when evaluating whether a reasonable person would find the work environment hostile. Citing *Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions* (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, the court reasoned that prior events provided relevant context for the post-release harassment, and the jury had already found that harassing conduct occurred after the release date before reaching the disputed question.
The court affirmed the JNOV, concluding there was no substantial evidence that any US Foods employee involved in the termination decision qualified as a “managing agent” under *White v. Ultramar, Inc.* (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563 and *Roby v. McKesson Corp.* (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686. Even as to those who might qualify, there was no clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud — only, at most, poor judgment.
The court found no abuse of discretion. The trial court properly set lead counsel’s rate at $750 per hour based on recent comparable awards, then applied a 40% reduction supported by detailed findings about limited success, block billing, duplicative work, and improper billing for clerical tasks. The denial of a fee multiplier was within the court’s discretion under *Ketchum v. Moses* (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, which does not mandate enhancement even in contingency-fee FEHA cases.