Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp.
219 Cal. App. 4th 466
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Alamo sued PMIC in LA Superior Court for FEHA pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination, with jury verdict for Alamo and fees awarded; Supreme Court later directed reconsideration after Harris (2013).
- Alamo began pregnancy-related leave Jan 15, 2009; baby born Jan 27, 2009; extended maternity leave granted Feb 18, 2009 to return Apr 22, 2009.
- Moran was hired to fill in during Alamo’s leave; Moran also pregnant and temporary; Moran’s pay was $14/hour.
- Cuevas (supervisor) had pre-leave performance concerns but no formal written warnings; post-leave, new concerns emerged about accounts and insubordination.
- Alamo returned Apr 22, 2009, was terminated after a meeting focusing on performance, not pregnancy; Cuevas, Trupiano, and Davis framed termination as based on performance and insubordination, not pregnancy.
- Trial court rulings on jury instructions, PMIC’s appeal, and Harris-related standards led to reversal and remand for retrial with Harris guidance; PMIC barred from mixed-motive defense on retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What causation standard applies to FEHA discrimination/retaliation claims? | Alamo; burden is substantial motivating factor. | PMIC; standard is a motivating factor suffices. | Former ‘motivating reason’ instruction improper; must use ‘substantial motivating reason.’ |
| Should the mixed-motive (BAJI 12.26) defense have been given? | Alamo; defense should be available. | PMIC; defense should be given. | PMIC waived the defense by failing to plead it; instruction not required. |
| Was PMIC entitled to a mixed-motive/same-decision defense as a complete defense? | Defendant could be vindicated only if burden shifted. | Defense should limit remedies or absolve liability. | Not applicable as complete defense; Harris requires pleading but court found waiver due to lack of pleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (Cal. 2013) (discrimination requires substantial motivating factor; mixed-motive remedies bound by Harris)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994) (instructions must be nonargumentative and not misleading; standard for appellate review)
- Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, 171 Cal.App.4th 72 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (propriety of jury instructions reviewed de novo; substantial evidence needed for proposed instructions)
- Ayala v. Arroyo Vista Family Health Center, 160 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (standard for evaluating requested jury instructions; substantial evidence)
- Day v. Alta Bates Medical Center, 98 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2002) (standard for ruling on trial court’s instructional reasoning)