Former African-American Employee Defeats Refinery Contractor Giant, PSCIndustrial Outsourcing, Inc. in Motion for Summary Judgment - a David andGoliath Reality

Los Angeles, California – Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, Mel Red  Recana, has granted a rare summary judgment against nationwide oil refinery  contractor, PSC Industrial Outsourcing, Inc. (“PSC”) that is owned by multi-billion  dollar giant investment company Littlejohn & Co., LLC and, simultaneously, denied  PSC’s own motion for summary judgment thereby allowing Leslie Jackson’s case to  proceed to a jury trial.  

In the Court’s order, Judge Recana found that former PSC employee, Leslie Jackson,  the sole African-American Account Manager in the Southern California region,  presented sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment that PSC subjected  him to racially-motivated and discriminatory employment actions, which led to his  separation from the Company. What began as a lawsuit initiated by PSC against one  of its former mid-level managers, has now backfired against the Company, leaving  PSC without any of its original claims against Jackson and only Jackson’s claims  against PSC to defend with a jury trial scheduled to begin on November 13, 2017 in  Los Angeles Superior Court.  

Leslie Jackson is represented by human rights activist Pamela Tahim Thakur, Esq.  and Melodie K. Arian, Esq. of the Thakur Law Firm, APC, located in Brea, California.  In the wake of the rulings, Ms. Thakur stated, “PSC is a very large and powerful  company and apparently it thought it could bully Mr. Jackson, but with this victory,  we hope to show PSC that the little guy can be a force to be reckoned with in a David  and Goliath type of case.” The ruling signified a massive blow to PSC which is  represented by nationally recognized employment defense firm, Littler Mendelson,  PC, in that a summary judgment is hard to win and most summary judgment  motions are denied.  

United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern  District of California, Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, in her article “Increasing the  Likelihood of Success on Summary Judgment Motions” for the Association of Business  Trial Lawyers confirmed the low success rate of winning a summary judgment:  “Summary Judgment is hard to win . . . in reality, summary judgment is highly  technical and requires much to prove and little to defeat . . . motions that are focused  and lean will have the best chance for success.” Nonetheless, summary judgment  motions still hold the promise of swift termination of meritless claims or defenses.  

Ms. Thakur said, “It is pretty rare for any party to win on summary judgment, but  certainly not undeserved. We have put all we had into litigating this case, and our perseverance paid off. Our goal is to ensure that our client gets a just result and to  hold the Company accountable to the law and, in this case, we’ve made great strides  in reaching that goal.”  

PSC initially filed suit against Jackson on October 16, 2015, alleging among other  claims, that he breached a Retention Agreement when he left PSC for a competitor  company a few months short of a full calendar year. Jackson not only answered  PSC’s complaint by generally denying all of its claims, but also responded by filing  his own cross-complaint against PSC asserting racial discrimination, retaliation,  failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, defamation, and failure to pay a  bonus he had earned while he was employed with PSC. PSC and Jackson both filed  motions for summary judgment after months of contentious litigation and taking  depositions of high-ranking PSC managers and executives. In Jackson’s successful  motion, the Court ruled that, based on all of the evidence submitted by both parties,  no reasonable juror could find in favor of PSC and that Jackson was required to sign  an unlawful and unenforceable non-compete agreement, effectively nullifying all of  PSC’s claims against Jackson.  

On October 6, 2017, the Court dismissed PSC’s frivolous lawsuit in its entirety,  finding that PSC’s case against Jackson did not have any triable issue as to any  material fact for various causes of action including Breach of Contract, Breach of the  Retention and Non-Solicitation Agreement, Interference with Employee Relations,  Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations/Prospective Economic  Advantage, and Unjust Enrichment. Most significantly, the Court found that the  “non-solicitation clause at issue in the Non-Compete Agreement is void and  unenforceable” pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 16600.  PSC employs more than 2,000 employees nationwide and several witnesses from  PSC testified that the same agreement at issue in the Jackson’s MSJ was given to  other employees.  

Judge Recana found that with Jackson’s claims there was enough evidence to allow  Jackson’s case to go to the jury that PSC engaged in racial discrimination in violation  of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), were so convincing as to  submit the issues to a jury. The rulings have effectively dismissed the case for PSC  as the Company now faces the very real prospect of a devastating jury verdict  against it. “We are confident that the good men and women of Los Angeles will hold  PSC accountable for what we believe to be abhorrent racism,” attorney Melodie K.  Arian of the Thakur Law Firm, said in a statement.  

Verdicts in similar employment cases involving claims of racial discrimination and  other claims, like those of Jackson’s against PSC, have resulted in massive monetary  judgments against the employer, which may include punitive damages and  attorneys’ fees and costs under California’s FEHA.  

Contact Us