Hollander v. Black & Decker

Filed 5/31/06 Hollander v. Black & Decker CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David T. McEachen, Judge. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Law Offices of Mancini & Associates, Marcus A. Mancini and David A. Cohn, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Winston & Strawn, Lee T. Patterson and Amanda C. Sommerfeld, for Defendants and Appellants.

This is a disability discrimination and misrepresentation action by Scott Hollander against his former employer, Kwikset Corporation, and a related entity, Black & Decker (U. S.) Inc. (collectively, Kwikset).^[1] The trial judge granted a nonsuit on the former, and a jury awarded Hollander $49,000 on the latter. Both sides appeal from the judgment.

Hollander argues the nonsuit was error because he offered sufficient evidence for the jury to find in his favor on the disability discrimination claim. Kwikset contends the misrepresentation cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations and unsupported by the evidence. Hollander is right and Kwikset is wrong. So, we reverse the nonsuit and remand for trial of the disability discrimination claim, and affirm the judgment.

* * *

Hollander was working as an engineer in Chicago when he was contacted by an outside recruiter for Kwikset in May 2000.^[2] The recruiter said Hollander was very well qualified for a purchasing position with Kwikset, as a Global Commodity Leader, and sent him a job description. After reading the description, Hollander believed the job involved â€