A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has kept a veteran union laborer's punitive damages claim alive against a high-profile contractor, setting the stage for a jury to decide whether years of on-site insults crossed the legal line into punishable conduct. Armando Almejo, who is in his 60s, says a foreman repeatedly mocked his age, calling him an "old man" and a "cockroach," and that he lost his job after he returned from a May 2022 trip to Mexico to care for a gravely ill family member. With the ruling, Almejo can continue to pursue harassment, age, and disability discrimination, and related claims in front of a jury with the punitive piece still on the table.
On March 8, 2026, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter A. Hernandez denied the defense's effort to knock out the punitive damages claim and a stand-alone harassment cause of action. The complaint also alleges wrongful termination, age and disability discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Trial is currently set for Jan. 26, 2027, according to court papers reviewed by MyNewsLA. The judge turned aside the defense argument that any alleged tormenters were simply rogue employees with no real say in company policy.
Why The Punitive Damages Question Matters
Punitive damages are not a routine add-on in California. They are reserved for cases in which a plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with "oppression, fraud, or malice." Under Civil Code §3294, employers generally are not on the hook for punitive damages just because a low-level employee misbehaved. An officer, director, or managing agent typically must have advance knowledge of the worker’s unfitness or must authorize or ratify the wrongful conduct. That backdrop is what decides to let Almejo keep his punitive claim significant for both sides.
What The Record Shows
According to the filings, Almejo testified that age-based taunts started in 2013 and kept coming until his final day on the job, and three co-workers said they overheard offensive comments. His lawyers contend that harassment-reporting training, which was provided in English, was not realistically usable for a workforce that was predominantly Spanish speaking. Two members of company management also reportedly testified in ways that suggested foremen had substantial influence over personnel decisions. Taken together, those points persuaded the judge to leave the harassment and punitive damages claims intact, per court papers reviewed by MyNewsLA.
Hathaway Dinwiddie And The Local Footprint
Hathaway Dinwiddie is a long-established regional general contractor. The company lists projects such as USC’s Brain & Creativity Institute addition on its website and highlights the City of Hope medical office building in Duarte in its project portfolio. The Mosaic project in San Francisco, documented by design firm Gensler as a 2025 AIA California Merit Award winner, showcases the firm’s role in high-profile Bay Area and Southern California development. Hathaway Dinwiddie maintains operations in downtown Los Angeles and has been a visible player on university and healthcare construction jobs for years.
What Comes Next
With the punitive damages theory still in play, the case now moves toward a jury trial in which jurors will decide whether the alleged conduct meets the state’s high threshold and whether any supervisors or managing agents authorized or ratified it. A finding of punitive liability would require jurors to conclude that the conduct rose to the level of malice, oppression, or fraud under California law. Whatever the verdict, the outcome could influence how courts and construction sites handle supervisor behavior, as well as how employers structure training and reporting systems on unionized jobs.
