Tran v. The Hertz Corporation

Background

Thanh (Tony) Tran was terminated from his position as a Hertz rental car sales agent. The termination followed a June 10, 2024 incident in which Tran refused an instruction to return to the counter after telling Assistant General Manager Brittney Thomas that he was stressed and was going home. Thomas suspended him, and Tran later complained to Human Resources that managers favored female Filipino employees. Human Resources investigated both matters. Hertz then terminated Tran effective June 28, stating that the reason was insubordination or failure to follow a management instruction.

Tran asserted seven causes of action: race discrimination and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; nonpayment or late payment of wages; and inaccurate wage statements. Hertz moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision issued when the evidence shows no genuine dispute requiring a trial on the issue.

Rulings on Employment Claims

The court granted summary judgment for Hertz on Tran’s FEHA race-discrimination claim. Assuming without deciding that Tran could establish an initial discrimination case, the court found that Hertz had identified insubordination as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination. The court further found that Tran did not present enough evidence to support a reasonable inference that race discrimination caused his termination. The evidence about perceived favoritism toward Filipino employees was not connected to the decisionmakers in a way that supported Tran’s claim, and Tran did not identify a Filipino employee who engaged in similar insubordination but was not terminated.

The court also granted summary judgment for Hertz on Tran’s FEHA retaliation claim. Tran showed an initial case because the decisionmakers knew about his discrimination complaint and terminated him about two weeks later. But the court found that knowledge and timing alone were insufficient to show that the stated insubordination reason was a pretext for retaliation. Tran presented no additional evidence supporting retaliation.

Because the wrongful-termination claim depended on the FEHA claims, the court granted summary judgment for Hertz on that claim as well. The court also granted summary judgment on the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. It found that Tran’s evidence that Thomas berated him, raised her voice, and acted accusatorily did not create a genuine dispute about conduct extreme and outrageous enough to support that claim.

Rulings on Wage Claims

Tran conceded at the hearing that he had been paid all commission wages to which he was entitled. The court therefore granted summary judgment for Hertz on the claim that Hertz failed to pay the full amount of commission wages owed.

The court denied summary judgment on Tran’s separate claim that the commission wages were paid late. The court found that the commission could not have been calculated on Tran’s termination date because some information used in the calculation was not yet complete. But the court found a genuine factual dispute about when the commission became calculable. Evidence supported an inference that the calculation could have been completed after the first week of July, while Hertz asserted that it was not calculable until July 18, when it was paid.

The court granted summary judgment for Hertz on Tran’s non-commission-wage claim. Tran did not address the wage theory alleged in the complaint and instead raised a $105 non-cash award. The court found undisputed evidence that Tran had redeemed the award before termination and that a later wage statement reflected only taxes Hertz paid on the award, not a net payment to Tran.

The court also granted summary judgment for Hertz on the wage-statement claim. The court found that Tran’s commission was not calculable when Hertz issued the July 3 wage statement, so the commission did not have to appear on that statement. The July 18 statement listed the commission, its amount, and when the commission was earned. The court therefore found no genuine dispute supporting Tran’s wage-statement theory.

Disposition

The court stated that Hertz was granted partial summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted on Tran’s FEHA claims, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, nonpayment of commission wages owed, unpaid non-commission wages, and failure to provide compliant wage statements. Summary judgment was denied on Tran’s claim for untimely payment of commission wages.