Bias Lawsuit Settled by 6 Iranians, Red Onion

Six Iranian immigrants who claimed that they were denied admission to a Red Onion Restaurant in Santa Ana last year because of their ethnic background abruptly ended the trial of their lawsuit Thursday by agreeing to settle the case.

The settlement involved a payment of money by the restaurant chain, which did not acknowledge any wrongdoing. Both sides refused to disclose the specific terms of the settlement.

“In my heart I know we won,” said Ali Reza Mirhousseini, 23, one of the plaintiffs. “I’m confident we got our message across. Money is not all that important.”

Gene Salas, vice president of Onion International Inc., which owns the 14-restaurant chain, said the case “was resolved to our mutual satisfaction,” but he declined to elaborate.

Lawyers for Mirhousseini and the other five plaintiffs had demanded $14,999 each to settle the case before the trial began, according to court files.

Onion International last year settled with dozens of other persons who claimed in complaints with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing that they had been discriminated against.

During the two-week trial in Orange County Superior Court, a battery of former employees of Red Onion restaurants as far away as Palm Desert testified that the firm manipulated dress codes and used other methods to exclude Latinos, blacks and other minority groups.

According to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, R. Richard Farnell, former Onion International vice president Lupe Munoz testified Wednesday that he sat through meetings at which President Ronald Newman threatened to fire employees unless a policy limiting minority-group patrons was forced. Munoz left Onion International in 1982.

“It’s an excellent settlement,” Farnell said.

“Never at any time have they been really motivated by money--although they did really well financially,” Farnell said of the plaintiffs. “They knew that, to make their point, there had to be a financial cost to the Red Onion. They’re very satisfied that that’s been accomplished.”

The secrecy was important to the restaurant chain because of the “13 other cases” alleging discrimination that are pending against them, Farnell said.

All six plaintiffs sat through most of the trial. Mirhousseini, 23, welcomed the settlement.

“I just want to get the message across that what they’re doing is not right,” he said. “Everybody’s equal and everybody should be treated the same. I sure hope that everybody else got the message.”

Plaintiff Saeid Marashi of Fullerton said the trial brought back the hurt and anger.

“I went through the same emotion that I went through last year,” Marashi said. “I chose the United States as my country. I am a citizen. I am registered for the draft.

“I believe in the Constitution. I believe in equal rights. I expect to be treated like anyone else, equally.”

Charges of Red Onion discrimination were the subject of widespread publicity last year.

A total of 76 persons filed complaints with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging that they were refused admission based on race or national origin. Onion International Inc. paid total damages of $32,000 to settle those complaints.

State to Monitor Operations

While denying liability, the chain revised hiring and training procedures last year, a move described by company officials as designed to correct the “perception of a problem.”

Under terms of the settlements last year, the state will monitor restaurant operations through 1988.

Pressed about the terms of Thursday’s settlement, Farnell said the $500 average recovery in the settlements last year offered “no comparison” to what his clients received. Farnell also cautioned against assuming that the payment was less than the amount demanded before trial.

Other plaintiffs are Maziar Mafi of El Toro, Behrooz Kholocci of Fullerton, Sayed Jalaleddin Mirrafati of Huntington Beach and Sayed Jalil Mirrafati of Anaheim.

“It’s been a matter of principle,” Farnell said. “They want to be treated like human beings, just like all of us do, and treated fairly. There should be a message here to other establishments that, if they discriminate, there is going to be a high cost to pay.”

Officially, the case was amicably resolved, according to Salas.

“Beyond that, there’s nothing more that we care to say about it,” Salas said.