The California Court of Appeal recently issued a ruling in the case of Nydia Del Socorro Lazo v. Sun Gir Inc. (B343372), which has significant implications for employment law, particularly regarding age discrimination and wage claims. The court's decision affects Lazo, a former employee of Sun Gir, and the broader landscape of employee rights in California.

Nydia Lazo, who worked as a cashier at a Carl's Jr. restaurant for 34 years, was terminated by her employer, Sun Gir Inc., due to alleged mishandling of cash transactions. Lazo filed a lawsuit claiming age discrimination and violations of wage and hour laws. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Sun Gir, granting summary judgment on all claims. However, the appellate court's recent decision reversed some of those rulings, allowing certain claims to proceed.

Background

Nydia Lazo began her employment at the Carl's Jr. location in Canoga Park in 1989 at the age of 42. She worked there for over three decades without any prior disciplinary issues. In 2023, Lazo was terminated at the age of 76 after an audit revealed alleged mishandling of transactions. Lazo claimed that Sun Gir's decision to fire her was motivated by age discrimination, as she was replaced by significantly younger employees.

The dispute escalated when Lazo filed a lawsuit against Sun Gir in May 2023, alleging age discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, as well as various wage and hour claims related to meal and rest breaks. Sun Gir responded by seeking summary judgment, arguing that Lazo's termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to her alleged misconduct.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal ruled on October 29, 2026, affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's summary judgment decision. The court concluded that Lazo had not met her burden of proof regarding the age discrimination claim, stating, "Lazo has not met her burden of raising a triable issue of fact on that claim." However, the court found that Lazo did raise a triable issue of fact regarding her wage and hour claims, including violations of meal and rest breaks and failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The court's ruling emphasized that Lazo's termination was based on the findings of an independent audit, which indicated mishandling of transactions. The court noted, "SGI’s firing of Lazo based on three allegedly mishandled transactions...may seem unwarranted," but ultimately upheld the trial court's decision regarding the age discrimination claim while allowing the wage claims to move forward.

Impact

This ruling is significant for several reasons. It underscores the challenges employees face when alleging age discrimination, particularly in cases where employers can provide legitimate reasons for termination. The court's decision to reverse the summary judgment on Lazo's wage claims indicates a recognition of potential violations of labor laws, which could encourage other employees to pursue similar claims.

The ruling also highlights the importance of employers maintaining clear and fair practices regarding employee treatment and termination. Companies must ensure they have robust policies in place to prevent discrimination and comply with wage and hour laws. The outcome of this case may influence how employers handle audits and employee terminations in the future.

What's Next