Bareno v. San Diego Community College District
7 Cal. App. 5th 546
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Leticia Bareno, a long‑time employee of San Diego Miramar College (SDCCD), was on disciplinary leave in Feb 2013 and then sought medical leave beginning Feb 25, 2013, submitting Kaiser "Work Status Reports" covering Feb 25–Mar 1 and Mar 1–Mar 8, 2013.
- Bareno alleges she e‑mailed her supervisor (and others) with recertification on March 1; the supervisor says she did not receive that March 1 e‑mail.
- Bareno did not appear at work Mar 4–8; after five consecutive unauthorized days the employer invoked the collective bargaining rule treating such absence as abandonment and sent a letter declaring her "voluntary resignation" effective Mar 11, 2013.
- After learning of the resignation, Bareno provided additional medical certification and sought to meet; SDCCD reviewed the materials but maintained the resignation/termination position.
- Bareno sued for CFRA retaliation (Gov. Code § 12945.2). The trial court granted SDCCD summary judgment; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding triable issues of fact on notice/certification and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bareno timely and sufficiently requested CFRA leave for Mar 4–8, 2013 | Bareno contends she provided notice and certification (via calls and multiple e‑mails, including March 1 recertification) and later supplied records showing medical necessity | SDCCD contends Bareno failed to provide notice/recertification for Mar 4–8 and that the March 1 e‑mail was not received, so no protected leave was exercised | Triable issues of fact exist; viewing evidence in plaintiff’s favor a reasonable trier could find Bareno gave sufficient notice and SDCCD failed to inquire further as required under CFRA regs |
| Whether the medical documentation met CFRA certification requirements | Bareno argues the Kaiser "Work Status Report" identified onset date, duration, and that she was off work—satisfying CFRA/regulatory certification standards | SDCCD argues the form lacked required detail and therefore was legally inadequate to trigger CFRA protections | Court: the standardized Kaiser form contained the elements CFRA requires; material factual dispute remains because SDCCD never sought recertification or used statutory procedures to challenge validity |
| Whether SDCCD had a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason (abandonment) for terminating Bareno | Bareno argues timing and continued communications show termination was retaliatory and SDCCD ignored evidence of medical leave | SDCCD argues the true cause was perceived abandonment after five days of no contact | Court: timing and factual disputes (communications, receipt of e‑mail, employer inquiry obligations) preclude summary judgment; a factfinder could infer retaliation |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate under McDonnell Douglas framework | Bareno contends she met prima facie elements and raised evidence of pretext; factual disputes remain | SDCCD contends it met its burden and that no reasonable jury could find for Bareno | Court: McDonnell Douglas shifts do not support summary judgment for SDCCD here; credibility and intent issues require trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Richey v. AutoNation, Inc., 60 Cal.4th 909 (California Supreme Court 2015) (CFRA and reliance on FMLA interpretive authority)
- Rogers v. County of Los Angeles, 198 Cal.App.4th 480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (courts rely on federal FMLA cases when construing CFRA)
- Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., 150 Cal.App.4th 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (summary judgment standard in employment cases)
- Ambriz v. Kelegian, 146 Cal.App.4th 1519 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate review of summary judgment—view evidence favorably to nonmoving party)
- Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (application of McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment)