rodriguez v. john muir medical center

8/8/2019 Rodriguez v. John Muir Medical Center

1/28

U

nitedStatesDistrictCourt

Forth

eNorthernDistrictofCalifornia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U


Forth


I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

ELVA RODRI GUEZ,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

v.

J OHN MUI R MEDI CAL CENTER,

Def endant . /

No. 09- 00731 CW

ORDER GRANTI NGDEFENDANT SMOTI ON FOR

SUMMARY J UDGMENT

Pl ai nt i f f El va Rodr i guez br i ngs cl ai ms of unl awf ul

di scr i mi nat i on, har assment and r et al i at i on agai nst Def endant J ohn

Mui r Medi cal Cent er . Def endant moves f or summary j udgment on al l

of Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms. Pl ai nt i f f opposes t he mot i on. The mot i on

was hear d on August 5, 2010. Havi ng consi der ed oral argument and

t he paper s submi t t ed by t he par t i es, t he Cour t gr ant s Def endant s

mot i on f or summar y j udgment .

BACKGROUND

Pl ai nt i f f i s a Hi spani c f emal e. She has wor ked f or Def endant

si nce Febr uary, 1989. Fr om 1989 t o 2000, she worked as an

envi r onment al t echni ci an. Whi l e i n t hi s posi t i on, she t ook

mul t i pl e l eaves of absence f or wor k- r el at ed i nj ur i es t o her back

and neck. I n 2000, Rodr i guez became a uni t secret ary i n t he

post par t um di vi si on af t er r et ur ni ng f r om a l eave of absence due t o

Case4:09-cv-00731-CW Document55 Filed08/31/10 Page1 of 28


2/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

a back i nj ur y. As a uni t secret ar y, Pl ai nt i f f r ecei ved an i ncreas

i n sal ary and was i n a posi t i on i n whi ch she woul d not have t o

per f or m wor k t hat woul d aggr avat e her back or neck i nj ur i es. Her

or t hopaedi c doct or , Franci s Pecor ar o, st at ed t hat her wor kr est r i ct i ons wer e no l i f t i ng mor e t han 20 l bs and no r epet i t i ve

f l exi on and extensi on of t he l umbar spi ne. Rodr i guez Decl . , Ex.

8. As uni t secretary, her cl i ni cal coor di nat or and dai l y

supervi sor was Laur i e Si bbi t t , her manager was Mar i na Yardumi an an

her di r ect or was Mer edi t h Pence.

Pl ai nt i f f gener al l y cl ai ms t hat she was const ant l y and

cont i nuousl y har assed by a cl i que of nur ses l ed by Rachel l e

Menconi - Shi pp f r om ear l y 2003 t o March, 2008. Rodr i guez Decl .

3. The cl i que was made up of Menconi - Shi pp, J enni f er Br i ggs,

Kr i st i n Bower , Natal i e Di cks, J ani e Cockman and Shant el l e McNabb.

Si bbi t t Dep. at 9: 16- 19. She st at es t hat each t i me t hi s cl i que of

nur ses worked together , whi ch was t hree t i mes a week, t he nur ses

woul d draw up chai r s ar ound [ her ] workst at i on and t al k about

sexual exper i ences, l engt h of peni ses, r aci al r emar ks, and t he

l i ke. Rodr i guez Decl . 8. Si bbi t t conf i r med i n gener al t hat sh

observed t he cl i que of nur ses make raci al r emarks about Hi spani c

peopl e. Si bbi t t Dep. at 18: 17- 18. However , Si bbi t t does not

st at e when or how of t en t hese comment s were made. Si bbi t t di d not

not i f y her super i ors about t hese comment s.

Pl ai nt i f f s case i s based on onl y t wo speci f i c i nci dent s of

nat i onal or i gi n har assment . The f i r st occur r ed at some poi nt i n

2003. She cl ai ms t hat , when she t ol d Menconi - Shi pp t hat she was

movi ng t o Di scover y Bay, Menconi - Shi pp asked her how she coul d



3/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

af f or d t o l i ve t her e and i f she r ecei ved ext r a money f r om dr ug

deal i ng, l i ke t he ot her Mexi cans, dr ug deal er s. Rodr i guez Dep.

at 87: 21- 24.

On November 10, 2003, Si bbi t t and Yardumi an pl aced Pl ai nt i f fon a f or t y- f i ve day per f ormance pr obat i on because of her behavi or

and per f ormance at work. The memo descr i bi ng t he r easons f or t he

pr obat i on not ed, f or exampl e, her ver bal i zed anger t owar ds Si bbi t t

and another coworker , l ong per i ods away f r om her desk wi t hout

i nf or mi ng t he char ge nur se, many non- wor k- r el at ed t el ephone cal l s,

cr yi ng at her desk, r ef usal t o go home when asked, t el ephone cal l s

t o many st af f member s houses, mi suse of pr escr i pt i on dr ugs,

er r at i c behavi or and an i nabi l i t y t o concent r at e and compl et e

t asks. Rodr i guez Dep. , Ex. 8.

On November 24, 2003, Pl ai nt i f f saw Dr . Pecoraro and

compl ai ned of whol e body pai n and mor e speci f i cal l y, i ncr ease i n

l ower back pai n. I d. Dr . Pecor ar o descr i bed hi s vi si t wi t h

Pl ai nt i f f i n a l et t er addr essed t o Tr i St ar I nsur ance, st at i ng, As

you awar e [ si c] , [ Ms. Rodr i guez] i s havi ng a gr eat deal of st r ess

i n her l i f e because of wor k- r el at ed i ssues. To r ef r esh your

memory, Ms. Rodr i guez was accused of abusi ng her Vi codi n. She was

accused of bei ng over sedat ed at work and thi s came as qui t e a

sur pr i se t o Ms. Rodr i guez, as wel l as mysel f . I d. Dr . Pecor ar o

wr ot e t hat Pl ai nt i f f was not abusi ng her pr escr i pt i on medi cat i on,

and not ed, I t i s appar ent at t hi s t i me t hat al t hough Ms. Rodr i gue

shoul d cont i nue her empl oyment wi t h J ohn Mui r Medi cal Cent er , she

cannot cont i nue t o work i n t he depar t ment t hat she cur r ent l y does

. . . . She shoul d be t r ansf er r ed t o anot her depar t ment whi ch, i n



4/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

my est i mat i on, shoul d be easy enough t o do. I d. Dr . Pecoraro

al so not ed t hat Pl ai nt i f f has been seen by Dr . Rome, a wel l -

r espect ed pai n- t r ai ned psychol ogi st . He f eel s st r ongl y t hat Ms.

Rodr i guez shoul d be t r ansf er r ed t o another depart ment as t hi s woulser ve Ms. Rodr i guez s best i nt er est , as wel l as t he i nt er est of he

cur r ent depar t ment . I d. Dr . Pecor ar o r ecommended t hat Pl ai nt i f f

st op wor ki ng i f not t r ansf er r ed because her cur r ent si t uat i on i s

i nt ol erabl e. I d.

As not ed above, t hi s l et t er was addr essed t o Tr i St ar

I nsur ance, not Def endant . Pl ai nt i f f has pr esent ed no evi dence t ha

she or Tr i St ar or anyone el se pr ovi ded t he l et t er t o Def endant .

Af t er her eval uat i on by Dr . Pecor ar o, Pl ai nt i f f went on

medi cal l eave due t o ment al st r ess. Rodr i guez Dep. at 180: 7- 8.

Whi l e on l eave, Pl ai nt i f f r equest ed a t r ansf er t o anot her

depar t ment because of t he st r ess der i vi ng f r om i nt er act i ons wi t h

co- wor ker s i n her depar t ment . Kr ol l Decl . 5. Di r ect or of

Empl oyee Heal t h Bar bar a Kr ol l advi sed Pl ai nt i f f t hat she woul d nee

a wr i t t en ver i f i cat i on f r om her t r eat i ng physi ci an t o t r ansf er her

t o a di f f er ent depar t ment . Kr ol l Decl . 5. On J anuar y 22, 2004,

Pl ai nt i f f s t r eat i ng psychol ogi st Dr . Rome wr ot e a l et t er t o

Def endant whi ch st at ed, Ms. Rodr i guez i s r el eased t o ret ur n t o he

usual and cust omar y j ob wi t h no r est r i ct i ons f r om a psychol ogi cal

st andpoi nt . Upon her r et ur n f r om l eave, Pl ai nt i f f handed t hi s

l et t er t o Yar dumi an. Pl ai nt i f f pr esent s t hi s shor t l et t er as t he

sol e evi dence t hat she pr ovi ded t o Def endant concer ni ng a doctor s

ver i f i cat i on r equest i ng a tr ansf er t o a di f f er ent depar t ment .

However , nothi ng i n t hi s l et t er r ecommends such a t r ansf er and



5/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

Def endant cl ai ms t hat i t di d not r ecei ve any i nf or mat i on f r om a

physi ci an r ecommendi ng a t r ansf er . Thus, Def endant r et ur ned

Pl ai nt i f f t o her f or mer posi t i on as a uni t secret ar y i n t he

post part um depar t ment .The ot her speci f i c i nci dent of nat i onal or i gi n harassment of

whi ch Pl ai nt i f f compl ai ns occur r ed at some poi nt i n 2004 or 2005,

when Menconi - Shi pp made a derogat or y r emar k about a Hi spani c young

man who had di ed i n t he hospi t al . Menconi - Shi pp sai d t hat he was

Hi spani c and wor t hl ess anyway. Rodr i guez Dep. at 77: 14- 23; i d. ,

Ex. 6. Pl ai nt i f f compl ai ned t o Si bbi t t about t hi s comment ,

pr esumabl y i n 2004 or 2005. Ther e i s no evi dence t hat Si bbi t t di d

or di d not , do anyt hi ng i n r esponse t o t hi s compl ai nt .

Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat , at some poi nt i n 2005, she ver bal l y

compl ai ned t o Si bbi t t about t he i nappr opr i at el y sexual nat ur e of

t he cl i que of nur ses conver sat i ons. Rodr i guez Dep. at 74: 20.

Si bbi t t r esponded by t el l i ng t he nur ses t o stop t hese di scussi ons.

Si bbi t t Dep. at 14: 11- 15. Si bbi t t t ol d Yar dumi an about Pl ai nt i f f

compl ai nt ; Yar dumi an di d not t ake any addi t i onal act i on. I d. at

14: 4- 19. Al t hough not cl ear f r om t he r ecor d, i t appear s t hat

Pl ai nt i f f compl ai ned di r ect l y t o t he nur ses about t hese

conver sat i ons, but not unt i l t he end of 2007. Rodr i guez Dep. at

73: 10- 12. At t hat t i me, Pl ai nt i f f t ol d t hem, You guys ar e get t i n

out of hand. I d.

I n Sept ember , 2006, Menconi - Shi pp repl aced Laur i e Si bbi t t as

Pl ai nt i f f s i mmedi at e super vi sor . Si bbi t t t r ansf er r ed t o a

di f f er ent di vi si on because she di sagr eed wi t h t he way her

super vi sors, Yar dumi an and Pence, deal t wi t h t he cl i que of nur ses.



6/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

Si bbi t t cl ai ms t hat Yar dumi an and Pence di d not hel p her

super vi se t he cl i que or corr ect t he pr obl ems she was havi ng

wi t h t he cl i que. Si bbi t t Dep. 9: 10- 13. Bef or e Menconi - Shi pp was

pr omot ed, Pl ai nt i f f wr ot e Yar dumi an a l et t er expr essi ng herconcer ns about Menconi - Shi pp s qual i f i cat i ons. Pl ai nt i f f wr ot e

t hat Menconi - Shi pp was t he l eader of a cl i que of nur ses and t hat

she was i nvol ved i n ever y negat i ve si t uat i on or probl em amongst

t he PM st af f , even when i t doesn t concer n her . Rodr i guez Dep. ,

Ex. 13. She compl ai ned t hat Menconi - Shi pp assi gned her f r i ends at

work t he l i ght est assi gnment s and over l oaded ot her nur ses wi t h mor

di f f i cul t pat i ent s. I d. The l et t er ment i ons no i nst ances of

har assment or di scr i mi nat i on, based on nat i onal or i gi n or anyt hi ng

el se.

Pl ai nt i f f pr esent s no evi dence of any har assment or compl ai nt

about harassment between Sept ember , 2006 and Mar ch, 2008. On Mar c

5, 2008, Menconi - Shi pp and Yar dumi an met wi t h Pl ai nt i f f t o di scuss

a compl ai nt made by another nur se, Natal i e Di cks. Di cks compl ai ne

t hat Pl ai nt i f f cal l ed her a bi t ch. Rodr i guez Dep. at 80: 23-

82: 11. Pl ai nt i f f deni ed maki ng t he comment and compl ai ned t hat

ot her nur ses used pr of ane l anguage r egul ar l y. Pl ai nt i f f al so

compl ai ned t hat t he nur ses rout i nel y t al ked about sex i n f r ont of

her desk and used r aci al sl ur s t o descr i be Sout h Asi ans.

Speci f i cal l y, she cl ai med t hat nur ses at wor k cal l ed Sout h Asi ans

gupt as and habi bs and j oked about t hei r body odor . I t i s not

cl ear who made t hese comments, and when or how of t en t hey wer e

made. Pl ai nt i f f does not deny t hat she al so par t i ci pat ed i n maki n

such sl ur s. Di cks Dep. at 35: 18- 36: 8; Menconi - Shi pp Dep. at 19: 1-



7/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

6.

On March 10, 2008, Pl ai nt i f f met wi t h Yardumi an and Menconi -

Shi pp t o di scuss her per f or mance eval uat i on. She r ecei ved a

negat i ve eval uat i on because she engaged i n non- work r el at ed t asksdur i ng wor k t i me, such as kni t t i ng, r eadi ng her per sonal mai l ,

doi ng Sudoku puzzl es and maki ng per sonal cal l s. The r evi ew al so

noted t hat she f ai l ed t o compl et e ass i gned t asks and convey a

pr of essi onal i mage. Rodr i guez Dep. , Ex. 5. Yar dumi an and Menconi

Shi pp t hr eat ened t o pl ace Pl ai nt i f f on pr obat i on.

The next day, Mar ch 11, Pl ai nt i f f pl aced hersel f on a l eave o

absence f or ment al di st r ess. Rodr i guez Dep. at 133: 14.

Def endant mai nt ai ns a wr i t t en pol i cy of gr ant i ng non- i ndust r i al

medi cal l eave f or up t o si x mont hs and i t r equi r es a physi ci an s

r el ease pr i or t o r et ur ni ng f r om t he medi cal l eave. I n Sept ember ,

at t he expi r at i on of t he si x mont hs, Pl ai nt i f f was not abl e t o

r et ur n to wor k and di r ect or of human resour ces J ul i e Ander son

i nf or med her t hat Def endant woul d uni l at er al l y extend her l eave f o

anot her ni net y days. I n December , af t er t hi s ni net y- day extensi on

Pl ai nt i f f was st i l l unabl e t o r et ur n t o wor k and she di d not not i f

Def endant whet her she i nt ended t o r etur n t o work.

On J anuar y 7, 2009, Ander son not i f i ed Pl ai nt i f f t hat she had

been t ermi nat ed as of December 10, 2008. Anderson was t he sol e

deci si on- maker concer ni ng Pl ai nt i f f s t er mi nat i on and nobody

r ecommended t o Ander son t hat Pl ai nt i f f shoul d be t er mi nat ed.

Meanwhi l e, i n J ul y, 2008, whi l e on l eave, Pl ai nt i f f had

wr i t t en a l et t er t o Def endant summar i zi ng i nci dent s she per cei ved

t o be harassment over t he years of her empl oyment . The i nci dent s



8/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

i ncl uded t hose di scussed above. Def endant conduct ed an

i nvest i gat i on i n r esponse t o Pl ai nt i f f s l et t er . Yar dumi an hel d a

st af f meet i ng t o i nf or m empl oyees t hat r aci al comment s ar e

unaccept abl e i n t he work envi r onment . She al so sent st af f an emair ei t er at i ng Def endant s pol i cy agai nst har assment and encour agi ng

st af f t o r epor t any i nappr opr i at e comment s.

On November 14, 2008, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a char ge of

di scr i mi nat i on wi t h t he Depar t ment of Fai r Empl oyment and Housi ng

( DFEH) and t he Equal Empl oyment Oppor t uni t y Commi ssi on ( EEOC)

al l egi ng r et al i at i on and di scr i mi nat i on based on sex, nat i onal

or i gi n and di sabi l i t y. On J anuar y 6, 2009, she f i l ed anot her

charge wi t h t he DFEH and EEOC al l egi ng r et al i at i on and

di scr i mi nat i on based on nat i onal or i gi n and di sabi l i t y. The 2009

char ge mi r r ors t he 2008 charge.

Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed evi dence t hat , on Apr i l 14, 2010, she

began psychother apy t r eatment wi t h Dr . J ohn I t al i a, who di agnosed

her wi t h maj or depr essi on and post - t r aumat i c st r ess di sorder .

Rodr i guez Decl . , Ex. 7.

Pl ai nt i f f s oper at i ve compl ai nt al l eges t he f ol l owi ng causes

of act i on: ( 1) nat i onal or i gi n di scr i mi nat i on i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l

VI I ; ( 2) nat i onal or i gi n har assment i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e VI I ;

( 3) di sabi l i t y di scri mi nat i on i n vi ol at i on of t he Amer i cans wi t h

Di sabi l i t i es Act ( ADA) ; ( 4) di sabi l i t y har assment i n vi ol at i on of

t he ADA; ( 5) f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de r easonabl e accommodat i on i n

vi ol at i on of t he ADA; ( 6) anot her char ge of di sabi l i t y

di scri mi nat i on i n vi ol at i on of t he ADA; ( 7) nat i onal or i gi n and

di sabi l i t y di scr i mi nat i on i n vi ol at i on of t he Cal i f or ni a Fai r



9/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

Empl oyment and Housi ng Act ( FEHA) ; ( 8) di sabi l i t y harassment i n

vi ol at i on of FEHA; ( 9) r et al i at i on i n vi ol at i on of FEHA;

( 10) f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de reasonabl e accommodat i on i n vi ol at i on of

FEHA; ( 11) f ai l ur e t o pr event di sabi l i t y di scr i mi nat i on i nvi ol at i on of FEHA; and ( 12) wr ongf ul di schar ge i n vi ol at i on of

publ i c pol i cy.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summar y j udgment i s proper l y gr ant ed when no genui ne and

di sput ed i ssues of mat er i al f act r emai n, and when, vi ewi ng t he

evi dence most f avorabl y to t he nonmovi ng par t y, t he movant i s

cl ear l y ent i t l ed t o pr evai l as a mat t er of l aw. Fed. R. Ci v. P.

56; Cel ot ex Cor p. v. Cat r et t , 477 U. S. 317, 322- 23 ( 1986) ;

Ei senber g v. I ns. Co. of N. Am. , 815 F. 2d 1285, 1288- 89 ( 9t h Ci r .

1987) .

The movi ng par t y bear s t he bur den of showi ng t hat t here i s no

mat er i al f act ual di sput e. Ther ef or e, t he cour t must r egar d as t r u

t he opposi ng par t y' s evi dence, i f suppor t ed by af f i davi t s or ot her

evi dent i ar y mat er i al . Cel ot ex, 477 U. S. at 324; Ei senber g, 815

F. 2d at 1289. The cour t must dr aw al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n

f avor of t he par t y agai nst whom summary j udgment i s sought .

Mat sushi t a El ec. I ndus. Co. v. Zeni t h Radi o Cor p. , 475 U. S. 574,

587 ( 1986) ; I nt el Cor p. v. Har t f or d Acci dent & I ndem. Co. , 952 F. 2

1551, 1558 ( 9t h Ci r . 1991) .

Mat er i al f act s whi ch woul d pr ecl ude ent r y of summary j udgment

ar e t hose whi ch, under appl i cabl e subst ant i ve l aw, may af f ect t he

out come of t he case. The subst ant i ve l aw wi l l i dent i f y whi ch f act

ar e mat er i al . Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 248



10/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

( 1986) .

Wher e t he movi ng par t y does not bear t he bur den of proof on a

i ssue at t r i al , t he movi ng par t y may di schar ge i t s bur den of

pr oduct i on by ei t her of t wo met hods:The movi ng par t y may produce evi dence negat i ng anessent i al el ement of t he nonmovi ng par t y s case, or ,af t er sui t abl e di scover y, t he movi ng part y may show t hatt he nonmovi ng par t y does not have enough evi dence of anessent i al el ement of i t s cl ai m or def ense t o car r y i t sul t i mat e bur den of per suasi on at t r i al .

Ni ssan Fi r e & Mar i ne I ns. Co. , Ltd. , v. Fr i t z Cos. , I nc. , 210 F. 3d

1099, 1106 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) .

I f t he movi ng part y di schar ges i t s bur den by showi ng an

absence of evi dence t o suppor t an essent i al el ement of a cl ai m or

def ense, i t i s not r equi r ed t o pr oduce evi dence showi ng t he absenc

of a mat er i al f act on such i ssues, or t o suppor t i t s mot i on wi t h

evi dence negat i ng t he nonmovi ng par t y s cl ai m. I d. ; see al so

Luj an v. Nat l Wi l dl i f e Fed n, 497 U. S. 871, 885 ( 1990) ; Bhan v.

NME Hosps. , I nc. , 929 F. 2d 1404, 1409 ( 9t h Ci r . 1991) . I f t he

movi ng par t y shows an absence of evi dence t o suppor t t he nonmovi n

par t y s case, t he bur den t hen shi f t s t o t he nonmovi ng par t y t o

pr oduce speci f i c evi dence, t hr ough af f i davi t s or admi ssi bl e

di scover y mat er i al , t o show t hat t he di sput e exi st s. Bhan, 929

F. 2d at 1409.

I f t he movi ng par t y di schar ges i t s bur den by negat i ng an

essent i al el ement of t he nonmovi ng par t y s cl ai m or def ense, i t

must pr oduce af f i r mat i ve evi dence of such negat i on. Ni ssan, 210

F. 3d at 1105. I f t he movi ng part y pr oduces such evi dence, t he

bur den t hen shi f t s t o t he nonmovi ng par t y to pr oduce speci f i c



11/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11

evi dence t o show t hat a di sput e of mat er i al f act exi st s. I d.

I f t he movi ng par t y does not meet i t s i ni t i al bur den of

pr oduct i on by ei t her met hod, t he nonmovi ng part y i s under no

obl i gat i on t o of f er any evi dence i n suppor t of i t s opposi t i on. I dThi s i s t r ue even t hough t he nonmovi ng par t y bear s t he ul t i mat e

bur den of per suasi on at t r i al . I d. at 1107.

DI SCUSSI ON

I . Di scr i mi nat i on Cl ai ms

A. Appl i cabl e Law

I n McDonnel l Dougl as Corp. v. Gr een, 411 U. S. 792, 802 ( 1973)

and Texas Dept . of Communi t y Af f ai r s v. Bur di ne, 450 U. S. 248

( 1981) , t he Supr eme Cour t est abl i shed a bur den- shi f t i ng f r amework

f or eval uat i ng t he suf f i ci ency of pl ai nt i f f s evi dence i n

empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on sui t s. The same bur den- shi f t i ng

f r amework i s used when anal yzi ng cl ai ms under FEHA. Br adl ey v.

Harcour t , Br ace & Co. , 104 F. 3d 267, 270 ( 9t h Ci r . 1996) ( FEHA) .

Wi t hi n t hi s f r amewor k, pl ai nt i f f s may est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case

of di scr i mi nat i on by ref er ence t o ci r cumst ant i al evi dence; t o do

so, pl ai nt i f f s must show t hat t hey ar e member s of a pr ot ect ed

cl ass; t hat t hey wer e qual i f i ed f or t he posi t i on t hey hel d or

sought ; t hat t hey were subj ect ed t o an adver se empl oyment deci si on

and that t hey wer e r epl aced by someone who was not a member of t he

pr ot ect ed cl ass or t hat t he ci r cumst ances of t he deci si on ot her wi s

r ai sed an i nf er ence of di scr i mi nat i on. St . Mar y s Honor Ct r . v.

Hi cks, 509 U. S. 502, 506 ( 1993) ( ci t i ng McDonnel l Dougl as and

Bur di ne) . Once pl ai nt i f f s est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case, a

pr esumpt i on of di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent ar i ses. I d. To over come t hi



12/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 12

pr esumpt i on, def endant s must come f orward wi t h a l egi t i mat e, non-

di scr i mi nat or y r eason f or t he empl oyment deci si on. I d. at 506- 07.

I f def endant s pr ovi de t hat expl anat i on, t he pr esumpt i on di sappear s

and pl ai nt i f f s must sat i sf y t hei r ul t i mat e bur den of per suasi ont hat def endant s act ed wi t h di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent . I d. at 510- 11.

To survi ve summar y j udgment , pl ai nt i f f s must t hen i nt r oduce

evi dence suf f i ci ent t o r ai se a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act as t

whet her t he r eason t he empl oyer ar t i cul at ed i s a pr et ext f or

di scr i mi nat i on. Pl ai nt i f f s may r el y on t he same evi dence used t o

est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case or put f or t h addi t i onal evi dence. Se

Col eman v. Quaker Oat s Co. , 232 F. 3d 1271, 1282 (9t h Ci r . 2000) ;

Wal l i s v. J . R. Si mpl ot Co. , 26 F. 3d 885, 892 ( 9t h Ci r . 1994) .

However , i n t hose cases wher e t he pr i ma f aci e case consi st s of no

more t han the mi ni mum necessary t o cr eat e a presumpt i on of

di scr i mi nat i on under McDonnel l Dougl as, pl ai nt i f f has f ai l ed t o

r ai se a t r i abl e i ssue of f act. Wal l i s, 26 F. 3d at 890.

Pl ai nt i f f s can pr ovi de evi dence of pr et ext ( 1) i ndi r ect l y, b

showi ng that t he empl oyer ' s prof f er ed expl anat i on i s unwor t hy of

credence because i t i s i nt er nal l y i nconsi st ent or ot her wi se not

bel i evabl e, or ( 2) di r ect l y, by showi ng t hat unl awf ul

di scr i mi nat i on mor e l i kel y mot i vat ed t he empl oyer . Raad v.

Fai r banks N. St ar Bor ough Sch. Di st . , 323 F. 3d 1185, 1194 ( 9t h Ci r

2003) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . When

pl ai nt i f f s pr esent i ndi r ect evi dence t hat t he pr of f er ed expl anat i o

i s a pr et ext f or di scr i mi nat i on, t hat evi dence must be speci f i c

and subst ant i al t o def eat t he empl oyer ' s mot i on f or summary

j udgment . EEOC v. Boei ng Co. , 577 F. 3d 1044, 1049 ( 9t h Ci r .



13/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13

2009) ( quot i ng Coghl an v. Am. Seaf oods Co. LLC, 413 F. 3d 1090, 109

( 9t h Ci r . 2005) ) . When pl ai nt i f f s pr of f er di r ect evi dence t hat

def endant s expl anat i on i s a pr et ext f or di scr i mi nat i on, ver y

l i t t l e evi dence i s r equi r ed t o avoi d summar y j udgment . Boei ng,577 F. 3d at 1049.

The Ni nt h Ci r cui t has i nst r uct ed t hat di st r i ct cour t s must be

caut i ous i n gr ant i ng summary j udgment f or empl oyers on

di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms. See Lam v. Uni v. of Hawai i , 40 F. 3d 1551,

1564 ( 9t h Ci r . 1994) .

B. Anal ysi s

1. Nat i onal Or i gi n Di scr i mi nat i on Cl ai ms

Def endant i s ent i t l ed t o summary j udgment on Pl ai nt i f f s

nat i onal or i gi n di scr i mi nat i on cl ai ms under Ti t l e VI I and FEHA

because Pl ai nt i f f cannot make out a pr i ma f aci e case t hat she

suf f ered an adver se empl oyment act i on as a r esul t of

di scr i mi nat i on.

Def endant ar gues t hat Pl ai nt i f f has not suf f er ed an adver se

empl oyment act i on as a r esul t of any di scr i mi nat i on. The Ni nt h

Ci r cui t def i nes adver se empl oyment act i on br oadl y. Fonseca v.

Sysco Food Ser vi ces of Ar i zona, I nc. , 374 F. 3d 840, 847 ( 9t h Ci r .

2004) ( ci t i ng Ray v. Hender son, 217 F. 3d 1234, 1241 ( 9t h Ci r .

2000) ; see al so Br ooks v. Ci t y of San Mateo, 229 F. 3d 917, 928 ( 9t

Ci r . 2000) ( col l ect i ng cases) . An adver se empl oyment act i on i s on

t hat mat er i al l y af f ect [ s] t he compensat i on, t er ms, condi t i ons, or

pr i vi l eges of . . . empl oyment . Davi s v. Team El ec. Co. , 520 F. 3

1080, 1089 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) . However , [ n] ot every empl oyment

deci si on amount s t o an adver se empl oyment act i on. Br ooks, 229



14/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 14

F. 3d at 928.

Pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat she suf f er ed the adver se empl oyment

act i on of a const r uct i ve di schar ge on t he t heor y t hat t he const ant

har assment t hat she suf f er ed f or ced her t o di scont i nue wor ki ng. Aconst r uct i ve di schar ge occur s when t he wor ki ng condi t i ons

det er i or at e, as a r esul t of di scri mi nat i on, t o t he poi nt t hat t hey

become suf f i ci ent l y ext r aor di nar y and egr egi ous t o over come t he

normal mot i vat i on of a compet ent , di l i gent , and r easonabl e empl oye

t o r emai n on t he j ob t o ear n a l i vel i hood and t o serve hi s or her

empl oyer . Br ooks, 229 F. 3d at 930 ( quot i ng Tur ner v. Anheuser -

Busch, I nc. , 7 Cal . 4t h 1238, 1246 ( 1994) . A si ngl e i sol at ed

i nst ance of empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on i s i nsuf f i ci ent as a mat t er

of l aw t o suppor t a f i ndi ng of const r uct i ve di schar ge. Wat son v.

Nat i onwi de I ns. Co. , 823 F. 2d 360, 361 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987) . A

pl ai nt i f f al l egi ng a const r uct i ve di schar ge must show some

aggr avat i ng f act or s, such as a cont i nuous pat t er n of di scr i mi nat or

t r eat ment . I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The det er mi nat i on whet her condi t i ons wer

so i nt ol er abl e and di scr i mi nat or y as t o j ust i f y a r easonabl e

empl oyee s deci si on t o resi gn i s nor mal l y a f act ual quest i on l ef t

t o t he t r i er of f act . Wat son v. Nat i onwi de I ns. Co. , 823 F. 2d

360, 361 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987) .

Pl ai nt i f f compl ai ns t hat , t hr ee t i mes a week f or sever al

years, a gr oup of nur ses woul d si t by her desk and gossi p about

sexual and r aci al mat t er s. However , Pl ai nt i f f has not present ed

any speci f i c exampl es of t he comment s made dur i ng t hese

di scussi ons, or any evi dence t hat comment s made dur i ng t hese



15/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 15

di scussi ons wer e di r ect ed at her sel f . Pl ai nt i f f has not shown t ha

Def endant di scr i mi nated agai nst her because of her nat i onal

or i gi nal or t hat she suf f er ed any adver se empl oyment act i on becaus

of her nat i onal or i gi n.The onl y speci f i cal l y i dent i f i ed r aci al l y di scr i mi nat or y

comment s ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o make out Pl ai nt i f f s pr i ma f aci e case

because t hey wer e so i sol ated and i nf r equent as t o amount t o st r a

r emarks. Mer r i ck v. Far mer s I ns. Gr oup, 892 F. 2d 1434, 1438 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1990) . [ S] t r ay r emar ks ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh

di scr i mi nat i on. I d. Pl ai nt i f f poi nt s t o t wo speci f i c r emar ks

al l egedl y made by Menconi - Shi pp: i n 2003, she r ef er r ed t o

Mexi cans as dr ug deal ers and i n 2005 she cal l ed a deceased

Hi spani c young man wor t hl ess. Al t hough t hese r aci st comment s ar

of f ensi ve, t hey wer e made t wo years apart and sever al years bef ore

Pl ai nt i f f s t er mi nat i on. They wer e not made wi t hi n t he cont ext of

Def endant s deci si on t o t er mi nat e Pl ai nt i f f . These comment s ar e

i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a const r uct i ve t er mi nat i on.

Thi s i s especi al l y t r ue i n l i ght of t he f act t hat Pl ai nt i f f

does not di sput e t hat she made i nappr opr i ate r aci al r emarks

hersel f . For exampl e, she r ef err ed t o a housekeeper named Har r y a

Habi b Har r y Bal l s when he came t hr ough her depar t ment t o col l ect

t he t r ash. Di cks Dep. at 35: 18- 36: 8. And, j ust l i ke t he cl i que o

nur ses, she r ef er r ed t o Sout h Asi ans as gupt as. Menconi - Shi pp

Dep. at 19: 1- 6.

At most , t he evi dence shows t hat t he nur ses i n t hi s cl i que

si mpl y di d not get al ong wi t h Pl ai nt i f f . Because an empl oyer

cannot f or ce empl oyees t o soci al i ze wi t h one anot her , ost r aci sm



16/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 16

suf f er ed at t he hands of coworker s cannot const i t ut e an adver se

empl oyment act i on. Br ooks, 229 F. 3d at 929. Pl ai nt i f f has not

pr esent ed evi dence that Def endant di scr i mi nated agai nst her becaus

of her nat i onal or i gi n such t hat no r easonabl e per son i n her shoeswoul d cont i nue t o wor k t her e. Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f has not

est abl i shed a pr i ma f aci e case of nat i onal or i gi n di scr i mi nat i on.

2. Di sabi l i t y Di scr i mi nat i on Cl ai ms

To r ecover f or di scr i mi nat i on under t he ADA, an empl oyee

bear s t he ul t i mate bur den of pr ovi ng t hat he i s ( 1) di sabl ed under

t he Act , ( 2) a qual i f i ed i ndi vi dual wi t h a di sabi l i t y, and

( 3) di scri mi nat ed agai nst because of t he di sabi l i t y. Bat es v.

Uni t ed Par cel Ser v. , 511 F. 3d 974, 988 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng

Nunes v. Wal - Mar t St ores, 164 F. 3d 1243, 1246 ( 9t h Ci r . 1999) ) .

di sabl ed empl oyee under t he ADA i s one who: ( 1) has a physi cal

or ment al i mpai r ment t hat subst ant i al l y l i mi t s one or more of t he

maj or l i f e acti vi t i es of such i ndi vi dual ; ( 2) has a r ecor d of

such an i mpai r ment ; or ( 3) i s r egarded as havi ng such an

i mpai r ment . Thornt on v. McCl at chy Newspapers, 261 F. 3d 789, 794

( 9t h Ci r . 2001) ( quot i ng 42 U. S. C. 12102( 2) ) . To det er mi ne

whet her an i mpai r ment subst ant i al l y l i mi t s an i ndi vi dual , a cour t

consi der s t he nat ur e, sever i t y, dur at i on, and i mpact of t he

i mpai r ment . Fr aser v. Goodal e, 342 F. 3d 1032, 1038 ( 9t h Ci r .

2003) ( ci t i ng 29 C. F. R. 1630. 2( j ) ( 2) ( i ) - ( i i i ) ) . Whet her a

per son i s di sabl ed under t he ADA i s an i ndi vi dual i zed i nqui r y.

Thornt on, 261 F. 3d at 794 ( quot i ng Sut t on v. Uni t ed Ai r Li nes,

I nc. , 527 U. S. 471, 483 ( 1999) ) .

A pr i ma f aci e cl ai m f or di sabi l i t y di scr i mi nat i on under t he



17/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 17

FEHA r equi r es a pl ai nt i f f t o show ( 1) he suf f er s f r om a

di sabi l i t y, ( 2) he i s ot her wi se qual i f i ed t o do hi s j ob, ( 3) he

suf f ered an adver se empl oyment act i on, and ( 4) t he empl oyer

har bor ed di scri mi nat or y i nt ent . Avi l a v. Cont i nent al Ai r l i nes,I nc. , 165 Cal . App. 4t h 1237, 1246 ( 2008) . An adver se empl oymen

deci si on cannot be made because of a di sabi l i t y, when t he

di sabi l i t y i s not known t o t he empl oyer . I d. ( quot i ng Br undage

v. Hahn, 57 Cal . App. 4t h 228, 236 ( 1997) ) .

Unl i ke t he ADA, t he FEHA does not r equi r e that a di sabi l i t y

substant i al l y l i mi t a pl ai nt i f f s maj or l i f e act i vi t y. See Cal .

Gov. Code 12926. 1( c) .

[ T] he Legi sl at ur e has det er mi ned t hat t he def i ni t i ons ofphysi cal di sabi l i t y and ment al di sabi l i t y under t hel aw of t hi s st at e r equi r e a l i mi t at i on upon a maj orl i f e act i vi t y, but do not r equi r e, as does t he Amer i canswi t h Di sabi l i t i es Act of 1990, a subst ant i all i mi t at i on. Thi s di st i nct i on i s i nt ended t o r esul t i nbr oader cover age under t he l aw of t hi s st ate than undert hat f eder al act .

I d.

Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat Def endant di scr i mi nat ed agai nst her

because of her physi cal and ment al di sabi l i t i es. Pl ai nt i f f ar gues

t hat she was suf f er i ng f r om si gni f i cant emot i onal di st r ess cause

by t he host i l e cl i que and Def endant di scr i mi nat ed agai nst her

when i t di d not t r ansf er her t o anot her di vi si on. However ,

Def endant of f er ed t o t r ansf er Pl ai nt i f f t o anot her di vi si on i f she

pr esent ed Def endant wi t h a l et t er f r om her physi ci an so

r ecommendi ng. The l et t er Pl ai nt i f f gave t o Def endant upon her

r et ur n f r om l eave and i n suppor t of her t r ansf er st at ed t hat she

i s r el eased t o ret ur n t o her usual and cust omar y j ob wi t h no



18/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 18

r est r i ct i ons f r om a psychol ogi cal st andpoi nt . Rodr i guez Dep. , Ex

47 ( emphasi s added) . Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed t o t he Cour t a di f f er ent

l et t er f r om her psychi at r i st r ecommendi ng a t r ansf er out of t he

post par t um depar t ment , but t hat l et t er was not addr essed t oDef endant and t her e i s no evi dence t hat i t was ever del i ver ed t o

Def endant . Ther ef or e, Pl ai nt i f f has submi t t ed no evi dence t hat

Def endant di scr i mi nat ed agai nst her based on her di sabi l i t y when i

di d not t r ansf er her t o a di f f er ent depar t ment .

Pl ai nt i f f al so cl ai ms t hat Def endant di scr i mi nat ed agai nst he

because of her physi cal di sabi l i t y. She asser t s that she was

r epeat edl y wr i t t en up f or not per f or mi ng physi cal t asks, such as

car r yi ng pat i ent s i t ems or r eachi ng f or el evat ed f i l es, whi ch she

was medi cal l y r est r i ct ed f r om per f or mi ng. However , Pl ai nt i f f

pr esent s no evi dence t hat she r ecei ved any such di sci pl i nar y

act i on. Al t hough she r ecei ved a negat i ve eval uat i on f or not

per f or mi ng cer t ai n t asks r equest ed by ot her nur ses, none of t hese

t asks r equi r ed her t o l i f t anythi ng over t went y pounds or

r epeat edl y bend over or st r et ch f or i t ems. See Rodr i guez Dep. , Ex

5. I n sum, al t hough Pl ai nt i f f has pr esent ed evi dence t hat she

suf f er s f r om depr essi on and anxi et y, she has not pr esent ed any

evi dence t hat she was di scr i mi nated agai nst because of a physi cal

or ment al di sabi l i t y. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t gr ant s Def endant s

mot i on f or summary j udgment of her di sabi l i t y di scr i mi nat i on

cl ai ms.

/ /

/ /

/ /



19/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 19

I I . Harassment Cl ai ms


1. Nat i onal Or i gi n Har assment

A pl ai nt i f f may pr ove nat i onal or i gi n har assment bydemonst r at i ng t hat an empl oyer has cr eated a host i l e or abusi ve

work envi r onment . Mer i t or Savi ngs Bank v. Vi nson, 477 U. S. 57,

65- 67 ( 1986) . To pr evai l on a host i l e wor kpl ace cl ai m, a pl ai nt i f

must show: ( 1) t hat she was subj ect ed t o ver bal or physi cal conduc

because of her nat i onal or i gi n; ( 2) t hat t he conduct was unwel come

and ( 3) t hat t he conduct was suf f i ci ent l y sever e or per vasi ve t o

al t er t he condi t i ons of her empl oyment and create an abusi ve work

envi r onment . Vasquez v. Count y of L. A. , 349 F. 3d 634, 642 ( 9t h

Ci r . 2003) . A pl ai nt i f f must show t hat t he work envi r onment was

abusi ve f r om bot h a subj ect i ve and an obj ect i ve poi nt of vi ew.

Ful l er v. Ci t y of Oakl and, 47 F. 3d 1522, 1527 ( 9t h Ci r . 1995) .

Whet her t he workpl ace i s obj ect i vel y host i l e must be det er mi ned

f r om t he per spect i ve of a reasonabl e per son wi t h the same

f undament al char act er i st i cs as t he pl ai nt i f f . I d. Al t hough t he

mer e ut t er ance of an . . . epi t het whi ch engender s of f ensi ve

f eel i ngs i n an empl oyee does not al t er t he empl oyee s t er ms and

condi t i ons of empl oyment suf f i ci ent l y t o cr eat e a host i l e wor k

envi r onment , when t he workpl ace i s per meated wi t h di scr i mi natory

i nt i mi dat i on, r i di cul e, and i nsul t , such an envi r onment exi st s.

Mer i t or , 477 U. S. at 65, 67. Nei t her si mpl e t easi ng, of f hand

comment s, nor i sol at ed i nci dent s al one const i t ut e a host i l e wor

envi r onment . Far agher v. Ci t y of Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 788

( 1998) . Fur t her , even i f a host i l e wor ki ng envi r onment exi st s, a



20/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 20

empl oyer i s onl y l i abl e f or f ai l i ng t o remedy har assment of whi ch

i t knows or shoul d know. Ful l er , 47 F. 3d at 1527.

Cal i f or ni a cour t s al so appl y f eder al deci si ons i nt er pr et i ng

Ti t l e VI I t o anal yze FEHA nat i onal or i gi n harassment cl ai ms. Et t ev. Ver i f l o, 67 Cal . App. 4t h 457, 464 ( 1999) .

2. Di sabi l i t y Harassment

The el ement s of a cl ai m of host i l e envi r onment harassment

based on di sabi l i t y under FEHA are t he same as i f anal yzed as a

har assment cl ai m under Ti t l e VI I : ( 1) t he pl ai nt i f f bel ongs t o a

pr ot ect ed gr oup; ( 2) t he pl ai nt i f f was subj ect t o unwel come

har assment because of bei ng a member of t hat group; and ( 3) t he

har assment was suf f i ci ent l y sever e or per vasi ve t o al t er t he

condi t i ons of empl oyment and creat e an abusi ve worki ng envi r onment

Agui l ar v. Avi s Rent A Car Syst em, I nc. , 21 Cal . 4t h 121, 130

( 1999) ; Et t er , 67 Cal . App. 4t h at 463. The pl ai nt i f f must show a

concer t ed pat t er n of har assment of a r epeat ed, r out i ne, or

gener al i zed nat ur e. Agui l ar , 21 Cal . 4t h at 131.

The Ni nt h Ci r cui t has not deter mi ned whether a pl ai nt i f f can

mai nt ai n a host i l e work envi r onment cl ai m under t he ADA. See Br ow

v. Ci t y of Tuscon, 336 F. 3d 1181, 1190 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ( decl i ni ng

t o deci de t he i ssue) ; see al so Kel l er - McI nt yr e v. S. F. St at e Uni v.

2007 WL 776126, at *13 ( N. D. Cal . ) . However , other ci r cui t s have

addr essed t hi s i ssue. To succeed on a cl ai m of di sabi l i t y- based

har assment , t he pl ai nt i f f must pr ove: ( 1) t hat she bel ongs t o a

pr ot ect ed gr oup; ( 2) t hat she was subj ect ed t o unwel come

har assment ; ( 3) t hat t he har assment compl ai ned of was based on her

di sabi l i t y or di sabi l i t i es; ( 4) t hat t he har assment compl ai ned of



21/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Fur t her , t he st at ut es of l i mi t at i ons bar Pl ai nt i f f s( 1) Ti t l e VI I cl ai ms based on act s t hat occur r ed mor e t han 300 daybef ore she f i l ed her compl i ant wi t h t he EEOC and (2) FEHA cl ai msbased on act s t hat occur r ed more t han one year bef ore she f i l ed hecompl ai nt wi t h t he DFEH. 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 5( e) ( 1) ; Cal . Gov tCode 12960( d) . These cl ai ms were f i l ed i n November , 2008. Thecont i nui ng vi ol at i on doct r i ne does not appl y because Pl ai nt i f f hasnot est abl i shed t hat act i ons t aken out si de t he st at ut es of

21

af f ect ed a ter m, condi t i on, or pr i vi l ege of empl oyment ; and

( 5) t hat t he empl oyer knew or shoul d have known of t he har assment

and f ai l ed t o t ake pr ompt , r emedi al act i on. Fl ower s v. S. Reg l

Physi ci an Ser vs. , I nc. , 247 F. 3d 229, 232 ( 5t h Ci r . 2001) ; see al sKel l er - McI nt yr e, 2007 WL 776126, at *13 ( ci t i ng Fl ower s) .

Even i f harassment cl ai ms under t he ADA are cogni zabl e,

Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m f ai l s.

B. Anal ysi s

1. Nat i onal Or i gi n and Di sabi l i t y Har assment Cl ai ms

Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat t he repeat ed gossi pi ng and comment s by

t he cl i que of nur ses near her desk cr eat ed a host i l e wor k

envi r onment . However , Pl ai nt i f f has not pr esent ed evi dence t hat

she was subj ect ed t o abusi ve ver bal conduct because of her nat i ona

or i gi n or di sabi l i t y. As di scussed above, Pl ai nt i f f does not gi ve

speci f i c exampl es of di scr i mi nat ory comment s made dur i ng t hese

gossi pi ng sessi ons. Fur t her , t hat t he nur ses gossi ped near her

desk i s not evi dence t hat t hey subj ect ed her t o i nappr opr i at e

ver bal conduct because of her nat i onal or i gi n or di sabi l i t y.

Menconi - Shi pp s t wo comment s r ef er r i ng t o Hi spani cs ar e of f ensi ve,

but t hey wer e not suf f i ci ent t o cr eat e a host i l e wor k envi r onment .

They wer e made t wo years apart and several years bef or e Pl ai nt i f f

st opped comi ng t o wor k i n 2008. 1 Si mi l ar l y, t he der ogator y names



22/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l i mi t at i ons ar e suf f i ci ent l y l i nked t o unl awf ul conduct t hatoccur r ed wi t hi n t he l i mi t at i ons per i od. See Yanowi t z v. L Or eal ,36 Cal . 4t h 1028, 1056 ( 2005) .

22

other nur ses used f or Sout h Asi ans ar e not evi dence of ver bal

har assment because of Pl ai nt i f f s nat i onal or i gi n or di sabi l i t y.

I n sum, j ust as Pl ai nt i f f has not pr esent ed evi dence t hat her co-

wor ker s comment s caused her const r uct i ve t er mi nat i on, she f ai l s tshow t hat t hey wer e suf f i ci ent l y sever e or per vasi ve t o al t er t he

condi t i ons of her empl oyment and cr eat e an abusi ve work

envi r onment .

I I I . Reasonabl e Accommodat i on Cl ai ms


Under t he ADA, a def endant s f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de r easonabl e

accommodat i on t o an ot her wi se qual i f i ed i ndi vi dual wi t h a

di sabi l i t y const i t ut es di scr i mi nat i on. Kapl an v. Ci t y of Las

Vegas, 323 F. 3d 1226, 1232 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ( quot i ng 42 U. S. C.

12112( b) ( 5) ( A) ) . A r easonabl e accommodat i on i ncl udes:

( A) maki ng exi st i ng f aci l i t i es used by empl oyees r eadi l yaccessi bl e t o and usabl e by i ndi vi dual s wi t hdi sabi l i t i es; and

( B) j ob r est r uct ur i ng, par t - t i me or modi f i ed wor kschedul es, r eassi gnment t o a vacant posi t i on, acqui si t i onor modi f i cat i on of equi pment or devi ces, appr opr i at eadj ust ment or modi f i cat i ons of exami nat i ons, t r ai ni ngmat er i al s or pol i ci es, t he pr ovi si on of qual i f i ed r eader sor i nt er pr et er s, and ot her si mi l ar accommodat i ons f ori ndi vi dual s wi t h di sabi l i t i es.

42 U. S. C. 12111( 9) .

Under Cal i f or ni a l aw, r easonabl e accommodat i on i s def i ned

al most i dent i cal l y as under f eder al l aw. Cal . Gov. Code



23/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2Cal i f or ni a l aw does not i ncl ude t he wor d appr opr i at e bef or eadj ust ment .

23

12926( n) . 2 The el ement s of a f ai l ur e t o accommodate cl ai m are

( 1) t he pl ai nt i f f has a di sabi l i t y under t he FEHA, ( 2) t he

pl ai nt i f f i s qual i f i ed t o per f or m t he essent i al f unct i ons of t he

posi t i on, and ( 3) t he empl oyer f ai l ed t o reasonabl y accommodate t hpl ai nt i f f s di sabi l i t y. Scot ch v. Ar t I nst . of Cal . - Or ange

Count y, I nc. , 173 Cal . App. 4t h 986, 1009- 10 ( 2009) .

B. Anal ysi s

Pl ai nt i f f appear s t o ar gue t hat Def endant f ai l ed t o

accommodat e her di sabi l i t y by f ai l i ng ( 1) t o t r ansf er her t o a

di f f er ent depar t ment and ( 2) t o st op t he wor k- pl ace har assment . I

al so appear s t hat t he di sabi l i t y Def endant f ai l ed t o accommodat e i

her ment al st r ess and anxi et y.

Whi l e Pl ai nt i f f s di agnosed depr essi on and post - t r aumat i c

st r ess di sorder may const i t ut e a di sabi l i t y cover ed by FEHA and t h

ADA, she has not pr esent ed evi dence that she i s a qual i f i ed

i ndi vi dual .

Cal i f or ni a s pr oscr i pt i on agai nst di sabi l i t y di scr i mi nat i on

appl i es onl y t o t hose empl oyees wi t h a di sabi l i t y who can per f or m

t he essent i al dut i es of t he empl oyment posi t i on wi t h r easonabl e

accommodat i on. Gr een v. St ate, 42 Cal . 4t h 254, 264 ( 2007) ; Cal .

Gov. Code 12940( a) ( 1) . Ther ef or e, i n or der t o est abl i sh t hat a

def endant empl oyer has di scr i mi nat ed on t he basi s of di sabi l i t y i n

vi ol at i on of t he FEHA, t he pl ai nt i f f empl oyee bear s t he bur den of

pr ovi ng he or she was abl e t o do t he j ob, wi t h or wi t hout

r easonabl e accommodat i on. Gr een, 42 Cal . 4t h at 262.



24/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 24

The ADA def i nes a qual i f i ed i ndi vi dual , i n pert i nent par t ,

as an i ndi vi dual wi t h a di sabi l i t y who, wi t h or wi t hout r easonabl

accommodat i on, can per f or m t he essent i al f unct i ons of t he

empl oyment posi t i on . . . . 42 U. S. C. 12111( 8) . The i ndi vi duamust al so sat i sf [ y] t he r equi si t e ski l l , exper i ence, educat i on an

ot her j ob- r el at ed r equi r ement s of t he posi t i on. Bat es v. Uni t ed

Par cel Ser vi ce, I nc. , 511 F. 3d 974, 990 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( en banc) .

Her e, Def endant had a pol i cy al l owi ng medi cal l eave f or a

maxi mum per i od of si x mont hs. When Pl ai nt i f f was not abl e t o

r etur n t o work at t he end of si x mont hs, Def endant ext ended her

l eave f or anot her ni net y days. When Pl ai nt i f f was st i l l unabl e t o

r et ur n t o wor k af t er t hi s ni net y- day ext ensi on, Def endant

t er mi nat ed her empl oyment . Pl ai nt i f f s most r ecent doct or s not e

di d not set any cer t ai n dat e f or her r et ur n t o wor k. Ther ef or e,

Pl ai nt i f f has not shown t hat she was a qual i f i ed i ndi vi dual and he

r easonabl e accommodat i on cl ai ms f ai l .

Even i f Pl ai nt i f f wer e a qual i f i ed i ndi vi dual , Def endant was

not r equi r ed t o t r ansf er her t o a di f f er ent depar t ment as an

accommodat i on. As noted above, Pl ai nt i f f was gi ven t he opport uni t

t o t r ansf er depar t ment s, but f ai l ed to pr esent Def endant wi t h a

physi ci an s not e recommendi ng such a t r ansf er .

Fi nal l y, Pl ai nt i f f ci t es no aut hor i t y f or t he pr oposi t i on t ha

cessat i on of harassment i s a r equi r ed r easonabl e accommodat i on.

Whi l e har assment based on a pr ot ect ed cl assi f i cat i on i s a separ at e

cause of act i on, Pl ai nt i f f has not pr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence

t hat i t occur r ed, or demonst r at ed t hat i t i s act i onabl e under a

r easonabl e accommodat i on t heor y. Hayman v. Food Li on, I nc. , 893 F



25/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 25

Supp. 1092, 1106 ( S. D. Ga. 1995) ; Canni ce v. Norwest Bank I owa, 18

F. 3d 723, 728 ( 8t h Ci r . 1999) . Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f s reasonabl

accommodat i on cl ai ms f ai l .

I V. Ret al i at i on Cl ai msA. Appl i cabl e Law

Cl ai ms f or r et al i at i on under Ti t l e VI I and FEHA ar e anal yzed

under t he McDonnel l - Dougl as f r amework out l i ned above. Lam, 40 F. 3

at 1559 n. 11; Yanowi t z v. L Or eal USA, I nc. , 36 Cal . 4t h 1028, 104

( 2005) . To est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case of r et al i at i on, a

pl ai nt i f f must show ( 1) he or she engaged i n a pr ot ect ed

act i vi t y, ( 2) t he empl oyer subj ect ed t he empl oyee t o an adver se

empl oyment act i on, and ( 3) a causal l i nk exi st ed bet ween t he

pr ot ect ed act i vi t y and t he empl oyer s act i on. Yanowi t z, 36 Cal .

4t h at 1042; accor d Mi l l er v. Fai r chi l d I ndus. , I nc. , 797 F. 2d 727

731 ( 9t h Ci r . 1986) .

B. Anal ysi s

Pl ai nt i f f gener al l y st at es t hat her har assment i nt ensi f i ed

af t er [ she] compl ai ned t o management . Rodr i guez Decl . 8.

However , she does not support t hi s gener al st atement by poi nt i ng t

any speci f i c i nst ances of a compl ai nt f ol l owed by har assment . The

onl y ci t ed i nci dent concer ns her compl ai nt t o Menconi - Shi pp and

Yar dumi an dur i ng t he Mar ch 5, 2008 meet i ng. Al t hough t hi s meet i ng

was convened t o di scuss Pl ai nt i f f s al l eged i nappr opr i at e comment

about a co- wor ker , Pl ai nt i f f used t he meet i ng as an oppor t uni t y t o

compl ai n t hat t he cl i que of nur ses ( 1) used pr of ane l anguage

r egul ar l y, ( 2) r out i nel y t al ked about sex i n f r ont of her desk and

( 3) used r aci al sl ur s t o descr i be Sout h Asi ans. On Mar ch 10, 2008



26/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 26

Menconi - Shi pp and Yar dumi an met wi t h Pl ai nt i f f t o di scuss her work

per f or mance. They gave Pl ai nt i f f a negat i ve wor k eval uat i on and

t hr eatened t o pl ace her on pr obat i on.

Pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt const i t ut ed pr ot ect ed act i vi t y becausei t addr essed an unl awf ul empl oyment pr act i ce. See EEOC v. Cr own

v. Zel l er bach Corp. , 720 F. 2d 1008, 1013 ( 9t h Ci r . 1983) ; Bl om v.

N. G. K. Spar k Pl ugs ( USA) , I nc. , 3 Cal . App. 4t h 382, 388 ( 1992) .

Def endant , however , ar gues t hat nei t her t he eval uat i on nor t h

t hr eat of pr obat i on const i t ut ed adver se empl oyment act i ons. The

Ni nt h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat onl y non- t r i vi al empl oyment act i ons

t hat woul d det er r easonabl e empl oyees f r om compl ai ni ng about Ti t l e

VI I vi ol at i ons wi l l const i t ut e act i onabl e r et al i at i on. Br ooks,

229 F. 3d at 928. Pl ai nt i f f has not ci t ed any case t o suppor t t he

pr oposi t i on t hat t he t hr eat of pr obat i on i s such an act i on.

Al t hough an undeserved negat i ve per f ormance revi ew can

const i t ut e an adver se empl oyment deci si on, i d. at 929, i t does no

i n t he pr esent case. Pl ai nt i f f r ecei ved a negat i ve per f or mance

eval uat i on on March 10, 2008, but she l ef t wor k t he f ol l owi ng day

and never r et ur ned. Pl ai nt i f f pr ovi ded no evi dence t hat she

suf f er ed negat i ve consequences as a resul t of t hi s eval uat i on.

Thus, she has not shown t hat t he per f or mance eval uat i on mat er i al l

af f ect [ ed] t he compensat i on, t er ms, condi t i ons, or pr i vi l eges of

[ her ] empl oyment . See Davi s, 520 F. 3d at 1089. Fur t her , because

Pl ai nt i f f l ef t so abr upt l y af t er her eval uat i on, i t i s not cl ear

whether she coul d have appeal ed t he eval uat i on or whether i t was

suf f i ci ent l y f i nal t o const i t ut e an adver se empl oyment act i on.

Br ooks, 229 F. 3d at 930 ( Because t he eval uat i on coul d wel l have



27/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 27

been changed on appeal , i t was not suf f i ci ent f i nal t o const i t ut e

an adver se empl oyment act i on. ) .

However , assumi ng arguendo t hat t he negat i ve eval uat i on was a

adver se act i on, because i t was i ssued wi t hi n f i ve days of t hecompl ai nt , i t woul d have sat i sf i ed t he causat i on el ement of t he

pr i ma f aci e case.

The bur den of product i on woul d t hen shi f t t o Def endant t o

pr esent l egi t i mate r easons f or t he negat i ve eval uat i on. Def endant

has sat i sf i ed t hi s bur den. Menconi - Shi pp and Yar dumi an based t hei

negat i ve r evi ew of Pl ai nt i f f on her per f or mance of non- wor k r el at e

act i vi t i es dur i ng wor k t i me. Def endant cl ai ms t hat Pl ai nt i f f al so

r ecei ved a negat i ve r evi ew because she f ai l ed t o compl et e assi gned

t asks and convey a pr of essi onal i mage. I d.

The bur den of product i on woul d t hen shi f t back t o Pl ai nt i f f t

demonst r at e a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act t hat t he reasons

advanced by Def endant wer e pr et extual . Pl ai nt i f f has not met t hi s

bur den. I n f act , Pl ai nt i f f admi t t ed t o doi ng al l of t he above-

ment i oned non- work r el ated act i vi t i es dur i ng work hour s and she wa

ver bal l y war ned sever al t i mes pr i or t o her per f or mance eval uat i on.

Rodr i guez Dep. at 93: 6- 21; 98: 23- 99: 17; 100: 2- 4. Fur t her , she doe

not di sput e t hat she f ai l ed t o compl et e assi gned t asks and convey

pr of essi onal i mage at wor k. Mor eover , Pl ai nt i f f has not pr esent ed

evi dence t hat si mi l ar l y si t uat ed i ndi vi dual s made t he same mi st ake

at work and di d not r ecei ve negat i ve per f ormance eval uat i ons.

Al t hough a shor t per i od of t i me bet ween Pl ai nt i f f s pr ot ect ed

act i vi t y and t he adver se empl oyment act i on enabl es her pr i ma f aci e

case, she has not pr esent ed any evi dence t hat Def endant s r easons



28/28

U


Forth


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3Because Pl ai nt i f f s di scr i mi nat i on and har assment cl ai msf ai l , her cl ai ms f or f ai l ur e t o pr event di scr i mi nat i on andhar assment al so f ai l . Si mi l ar l y, Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m agai nstDef endant f or vi ol at i ng Cal i f or ni a s publ i c pol i cy agai nstdi scr i mi nat i on al so f ai l s .

28

f or t he negat i ve eval uat i on ar e pr et ext ual . Pl ai nt i f f s onl y

evi dence of pr et ext i s t o r ei t er at e her pr i ma f aci e case, whi ch,

when based on such weak evi dence, i s not enough t o over come summar

j udgment . See Wal l i s, 26 F. 3d at 890. Accor di ngl y, Pl ai nt i f f sret al i at i on cl ai ms f ai l . 3

CONCLUSI ON

For t he f oregoi ng r easons, t he Cour t gr ant s Def endant s mot i o

f or summary j udgment . The cl erk shal l ent er j udgment f or Def endan

and Pl ai nt i f f shal l bear Def endant s cost s.

I T I S SO ORDERED.

Dat ed: 08/ 31/ 10CLAUDI A WI LKENUni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udg


rodriguez v. john muir medical center

Documents