Babot v. Equilon Enterprises LLC DBA Shell Oil Products US
4:18-cv-04802
N.D. Cal.Jul 8, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Sheila Babot was hired as a probationary refinery process operator at Shell’s Martinez refinery (Jan 4–Oct 27, 2016) and alleges pervasive sexual harassment by coworker Rick Duff.
- Babot says she complained to supervisors (Elzen Wilson and Allan “Buster” Metcalf) on multiple occasions (spring–October 2016) and that management failed to act. She was terminated Oct 27, 2016.
- Babot filed a DFEH administrative complaint on Oct 18, 2017; Shell moved for summary judgment arguing timeliness and lack of proof on multiple FEHA and related claims.
- At summary judgment, Shell sought exclusion of portions of Babot’s deposition and declaration; the court overruled those objections (sham-affidavit and discovery supplementation issues).
- The court denied summary judgment on claims for harassment (FEHA), failure to prevent harassment/discrimination, sex discrimination, retaliation (FEHA), whistleblower retaliation (Lab. Code § 1102.5), wrongful termination, and IIED; granted summary judgment only as to punitive damages (no evidence of corporate ratification/actual knowledge).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of FEHA harassment claim / continuing violation | Babot contends harassment was ongoing through termination and thus falls within continuing-violation doctrine despite DFEH filing one year after some incidents | Shell: most harassment occurred before the one-year limitations period and claim is time-barred | Denied summary judgment — factual dispute whether harassment was sufficiently continuous/frequent and whether employer knew such that continuing violation applies |
| Evidence supplementation / sham-affidavit objections | Babot says she later testified about additional complaints and incidents and disclosed them in deposition | Shell argues interrogatory responses were incomplete and later affidavit/declaration contradicts deposition | Court overruled Shell’s objections — deposition and declaration are consistent enough; discovery disclosures put Shell on notice |
| FEHA sex discrimination (comparator and pretext) | Babot points to male employees with comparable performance who were not disciplined/terminated (e.g., Stephens) and evidence suggesting pretext | Shell: termination was for legitimate performance reasons | Denied summary judgment — Babot met minimal prima facie showing; evidence raises triable issue of pretext |
| Failure to prevent harassment/discrimination | Babot: Shell failed to take reasonable steps after complaints, causing harm | Shell: took appropriate actions / no knowledge or timely notice | Denied summary judgment — disputes over supervisors’ knowledge and adequacy of corrective measures |
| Retaliation / whistleblower / wrongful termination (causation) | Babot: she engaged in protected complaints and was terminated days after manager noted she had "an issue with Rick Duff" | Shell: no protected activity or causal link between complaint and termination | Denied summary judgment — material factual disputes on protected activity and causal connection |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Babot: pervasive sexual harassment and employer inaction constitute outrageous conduct causing severe distress | Shell: conduct not extreme/outrageous so IIED fails | Denied summary judgment — court treats IIED as coextensive with harassment claims; triable issue remains |
| Punitive damages (corporate ratification) | Babot: managing agent ratified termination decision, supporting punitive damages | Shell: no evidence of actual knowledge or ratification by corporate decisionmakers | Granted summary judgment — plaintiff failed to show actual knowledge/ratification necessary for punitive damages against employer |
Key Cases Cited
- School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (interrogatory responses and limits on belated contradictory affidavits)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012) (sham-affidavit rule should be applied cautiously)
- Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (opponent may elaborate or clarify deposition testimony)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (2005) (continuing violation doctrine in FEHA context)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (prima facie discrimination framework and burden shifting)
- Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (circumstantial evidence and pretext analysis)
- Coll. Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.4th 704 (ratification for punitive damages requires actual knowledge)