REN Wei Li and Joy Lee Corporation, doing business as Green Consume Market, have asked the Superior Court to dismiss the claims of an ex-employee, Maria Elena Sapo.
Li and Joy Lee Corp., through attorney Colin M. Thompson, “generally denies” Sapo’s allegations.
“Sapo lodges arbitrary ‘catch all’ causes of action against Joy Lee based upon vicarious liability and for constructive discharge, neither of which meet Rule 8’s liberal pleading standards,” Thompson said.
“As a matter of law, vicarious liability against Joy Lee must be dismissed,” he added.
“Sapo fails to provide any statement or factual accompaniment to demonstrate that as alleged, Li’s conduct was assigned by Joy Lee, on behalf of Joy Lee, for the benefit of Joy Lee, or that Li engaged in a course of conduct within Joy Lee’s control. Rather, Sapo seems to rely upon the simple fact that because Li’s alleged conduct took place at Joy Lee’s place of business, Green Consume, Sapo asserts that Joy Lee is vicariously liable,” Thompson said.
“Li’s conduct was outside of the scope of his employment with Joy Lee,” the lawyer added.
In addition, he said Sapo “pleads no facts to indicate the alleged sexual conduct was within the scope of Li’s employment.”
Thompson said Li and Sapo’s mere presence together at the Green Consume in furtherance of their respective roles to the employer “is not sufficient to make the intentional conduct allegedly undertaken by Li within his scope of employment.”
“It is simply not enough that assault and battery take place at work or takes place between coworkers to invoke vicarious liability on an employer,” Thompson said.
Sapo’s alternate theory based on “information and belief” that “Sapo was not the only female employee of Joy Lee sexually harassed by Li” lacks factual allegations in support and is not sufficient to sustain her claim for vicarious liability against Joy Lee, the lawyer added.
“If Sapo had the slightest glimmer of knowledge to support her claim that Li had sexually assaulted other women on the job and that Joy Lee knew of such incidents, she could have plainly stated them. She did not,” Thompson said.
“Because Sapo failed to allege Joy Lee had ever received any knowledge of the alleged misconduct by Li, failed to allege that Joy Lee contributed in any way to the conditions which Sapo claimed were intolerable for her continued employment, and the extremely short duration of time between the two alleged incidents and her resignation, Sapo has failed to state a claim for constructive discharge,” Thompson said.
The complaint
In her complaint, Sapo alleged wrongful and constructive termination.
Sapo also accused the store manager, Ren Wei Li, of assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and vicarious liability and wrongful and constructive termination.
Sapo, represented by attorney Cong Nie, has asked for unspecified damages in an amount to be proven in trial.
At first, Sapo said she did not quit her job or complain to the police because she was afraid of not being able to find another job to financially support herself.
On March 2, 2022, in the morning, Sapo was at the store to open it up. Li came to the store to deliver money. When Sapo received the money from Li, Li ran his hand across Sapo’s chest, the complaint stated.
It added that Sapo immediately wrapped her arms around to shield her chest from Li, and looked angrily at Li.
The next day, on March 3, 2022, when Sapo reported to work at the store, Li appeared to be upset about a minor error on the change book of the store that Sapo made. Li yelled at Sapo openly in front of customers in the store, the complaint stated.
Sapo explained that the error was due to her being the only cashier in the store at the time and being rushed and it was simply a bookkeeping error and not an error in undercharging a customer.
But Li continued to yell at Sapo in front of customers. Li did so to embarrass Sapo and to show Sapo that she would suffer because she refused to let Li touch her, the complaint stated.
Sapo decided that she could not take it anymore and told Li that she was quitting her job and would call the police. Sapo did call the police and stopped working at the store. The police came and interviewed Sapo. When asked about video surveillance in the store, Li claimed that there was an issue with the cameras in the store and that there was no video surveillance of the incident, the complaint stated.
