Jury Awards $32.2 Million in Disability Discrimination Case Against Equinox Holdings

A Los Angeles jury on November 13, 2025 returned an $8.347 million compensatory verdict against Equinox Holdings, Inc. on FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation claims. Five days later, the same jury added $24 million in punitive damages, bringing the total to $32.347 million. The case is Hugyetz v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV26384.

The verdict is “one of [2025’s] largest punitive awards in a disability case,” the Daily Journal reported, and “underscores the sweeping liability employers face under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for failing to accommodate workers with known disabilities.”

What the Complaint Alleged

The plaintiff, Lajos Hugyetz, filed his Complaint on August 15, 2022. According to the Complaint, he is a five-time world and seven-time European kickboxing champion who started as a personal trainer in April 2017 at the Equinox Sports Club on Sepulveda Boulevard in Los Angeles. The Complaint alleges that in October 2021 he was diagnosed with severe hip arthritis and gave the company written medical restrictions: no continuous standing over one hour without a break, and a 25-pound lifting restriction.

According to the Complaint, the restrictions let him train clients but did not let him work two-hour “floor duty” shifts without a break, and Equinox kept scheduling him on floor duty anyway. The Complaint alleges that a supervisor threatened to fire him because of his disability on two days in January 2022, and that the following month, while he was on protected leave to care for his mother and to receive PRP injections of his own, Equinox terminated him.

The Summary Judgment Motion

On September 13, 2024, the court denied Equinox’s motion for summary judgment on most of the claims. It granted summary adjudication on two claims (disability harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress) and granted summary judgment for the individual defendant Joseph Hannant. Four of the surviving claims went to the jury: failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to accommodate disability, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The court also denied summary adjudication on punitive damages, writing that it “cannot conclude that no reasonable trier of fact could find clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud.”

The court’s order cited specific pieces of evidence submitted by the parties, including the deposition testimony and text messages quoted below.

The Person Most Knowledgeable Testimony

Connor Harrington, then Equinox’s Vice President of People & Culture, testified at deposition as the company’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK). According to the Court’s Summary Judgment Order, “At his deposition, Connor Harrington testified: ‘Q: … Other than temporarily accommodating Mr. Hugyetz’s work restrictions and provide information to Mr. Hugyetz to contact Reed Group, is there any other things that Equinox did in response to Mr. Hugyetz notifying Equinox of his work restrictions and orthopedic condition? A: Other than the manager connecting to follow up on the status of the request to open and submit paperwork to the Reed Group, I don’t believe so. Q: At a point in time, did Ms. Huang put Mr. Hugyetz back on floor shifts? A: Yes.’” The court wrote, “From this testimony, one could conclude Equinox only said it would accommodate plaintiff’s work restrictions but did not actually implement any accommodations.”

Connor Harrington left Equinox before the case went to trial. Harrington is now Vice President, Head of People at PS (formerly The Private Suite), the luxury private terminal at LAX and other airports.

The Text Messages

Supervisors Sadie Huang and Joseph Hannant exchanged text messages about Hugyetz, produced in discovery, that the court quoted in its order. In one exchange, Huang wrote that she could either schedule the plaintiff at a time that worked for him, or keep him on a shift “we know that doesn’t work for him” and “push him out.” Hannant’s response: “I say keep Lajos [Hugyetz].” In another, Huang wrote she was “going to write him up and hopefully that will push him to quit eventually.” Hannant reacted with a heart emoji.

Separately, Hannant wrote to Huang, “Is there a way to check w Reed Group to see his status? Just wondering how long he & [redacted] are gonna keep doing this ‘I can’t work floor shifts’ thing.” He continued, “I could totally see both of them Lieing [sic] to us to get off the floor.” On January 15, 2022, Huang complained to Hannant about “[f]reaken senior trainers… the [redacted] the Lajos, etc. so entitled!” After Huang told Hannant she would write Hugyetz up for “the missed PDM, missed floor shift for yesterday and today,” Hannant replied, “we spend so much time on the 3% of people that mean nothing!”

The court read these messages to “suggest Huang and Hannant knowingly scheduled plaintiff for shifts he could not attend because they wanted him to either quit or be fired.” The court concluded that “[a] reasonable trier of fact could infer Equinox terminated plaintiff because of his disability and his requests for accommodation.”

On February 2, 2022, Huang told Hannant, “Mary Lane approved my Final ROD for Lajos. [¶] Now I’m going to work on the term.” Nineteen days later (two days before the termination), Hannant wrote that firing the plaintiff “still has to pass the Mary Lane test.” Lane, an HR People Services Area Manager for Equinox, described her role on her LinkedIn profile as “[h]uman resources manager for assigned 12 club-region of 500+ employees,” and that her duties include to “[c]reate, update, and implement HR initiatives including but not limited to: onboarding and orientation, training and development, employee surveys, benefits enrollment, leave of absences, and performance reviews.” On this evidence, the court found a triable issue as to whether Lane was a managing agent under Civil Code § 3294(b), leaving punitive damages for the jury.

The Verdict

On the special verdict returned November 13, 2025, the jury found for the plaintiff on every claim submitted:

• Failure to engage in the interactive process. Yes on every question. (Q.1–Q.4.)
• Failure to accommodate. Yes on every question. (Q.5–Q.9.)
• Disability discrimination. Yes on every element, including that the plaintiff’s disability was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse employment actions and that Equinox’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm. (Q.10–Q.14, Q.17.) The jury also answered no when asked whether the plaintiff’s alleged violation of Equinox’s attendance and punctuality policy was a substantial motivating reason. (Q.15.)
• Retaliation. Yes on every element, including that the plaintiff’s accommodation request and disability leave were a substantial motivating reason and that Equinox’s conduct caused harm. (Q.18–Q.19, Q.22.) The jury again answered no on whether the plaintiff’s alleged violation of Equinox’s attendance and punctuality policy was a substantial motivating reason. (Q.20.)

The jury also found that Mary Lane was a managing agent of Equinox (Special Verdict Q.24), and that a managing agent, officer, or director had acted with, ratified, or authorized conduct amounting to malice, oppression, or fraud by clear and convincing evidence (Q.25). That finding unlocked punitive damages against Equinox Holdings.

Phase II of the trial followed five days later. The jury awarded $24 million in punitive damages against Equinox Holdings.

FEHA Takeaways

The Interactive-Process Duty Belongs to the Employer

Government Code § 12940(n) makes that duty affirmative and ongoing. From the testimony of Connor Harrington, then Equinox’s Vice President of People & Culture and its designated Person Most Knowledgeable, the court wrote, “one could conclude Equinox only said it would accommodate plaintiff’s work restrictions but did not actually implement any accommodations.” The jury found against Equinox on every element of the failure-to-engage claim. (Special Verdict, Q.1-Q.4.)

FEHA’s Accommodation Menu Is Broader Than Unpaid Leave

Under Government Code § 12926(p)(2), reasonable accommodation includes job restructuring, modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, equipment modifications, adjustments to examinations or training materials, and “other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.” The implementing regulation (2 CCR § 11065(p)(2)) adds more: altering when or how an essential function is performed, modifying the employer’s own policies, permitting work from home, and providing paid or unpaid leave. The jury found against Equinox on failure to accommodate (Special Verdict Q.5-Q.9) and answered “no” when asked whether Equinox’s attendance policy was a substantial motivating reason for the termination (Q.15, Q.20).

Managing-Agent Exposure Can Extend Below the C-Suite

Civil Code § 3294(b) permits punitive damages where an officer, director, or managing agent commits or ratifies malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury found that an HR People Services Area Manager was a managing agent of Equinox. (Special Verdict Q.24.) Human resources personnel with appropriate authority can, on the right record, satisfy § 3294(b).

The verdict illustrates the depth of FEHA’s reasonable-accommodation framework, and the scale of punitive exposure that FEHA cases can produce.

Rosenberger + Kawabata handles employment cases in California courts. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.