142 F. Supp. 3d 1007
E.D. Cal.2015Background
- Bowen was hired as a Senior Accountant at M. Caratan, Inc. (Columbine) in April 2012; her résumé/application indicated an accounting degree from University of Phoenix, but her diploma was not conferred until October 2012.
- The DOL notified Columbine in Sept.–Oct. 2013 that it was conducting an FLSA wage-and-hour audit and listed Bowen among employees it wanted to interview.
- Bowen and co-worker Patricia Bowshier discussed whether Bowshier was properly classified as exempt; Bowshier was later reclassified as non-exempt and not terminated.
- On November 12, 2013, Columbine terminated Bowen, citing that she lied on her application/résumé about having an accounting degree.
- Bowen sued asserting (1) FLSA retaliation (29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)), (2–3) wrongful termination/state whistleblower claims under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5 and common law public policy, (4) PAGA, and (5) defamation.
- The central factual disputes relevant to summary judgment: whether Columbine knew Bowen lacked the degree when hired, whether Bowen was in fact identified by the DOL as a likely witness at the time of termination, and whether the degree-lying explanation was pretext for retaliation to prevent Bowen’s DOL interview.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowen engaged in protected activity under FLSA ("about to testify") | Bowen was on the DOL’s list and thus was "about to testify," which is protected even if she did not notify employer | Employer says FLSA protection requires notice/complaint to employer; Bowen never told them she would complain or testify | Court: genuine issue of fact exists whether DOL sought to interview Bowen and she was "about to testify"; protection applies and summary judgment denied |
| Causation — was termination motivated by protected activity | Timing (termination ~3 weeks after DOL identified her) plus evidence that managers feared DOL fines and knew/classified her as exempt despite degree issue supports causation | Employer contends termination based on discovery that Bowen lied on application/résumé and unrelated workplace incidents (Halloween/Chewbacca incident) | Court: timing plus inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence permit inference employer was motivated by fear of DOL discovery; triable issue on causation/pretext |
| Pretext for legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (lied on application) | Bowen shows disputed facts: employer may have known she lacked degree when hired; application language ambiguous; résumé may have been created before degree conferred; HR investigation timing suspicious | Employer asserts honest belief that Bowen lied justifies termination | Court: factual conflicts about what managers knew and when create a genuine dispute on pretext; employer’s reason may be unworthy of credence |
| Defamation via compelled self-publication | Bowen says HR documented that she "lied" and she was compelled to disclose that reason to prospective employers, so originator liable for foreseeable self-publication | Employer contends no publication to third parties and truth is a defense | Court: Bowen produced evidence that employer-originated statement existed and it was foreseeable she would have to repeat it; triable issue on falsity/credibility; claim survives summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination/retaliation cases)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011) (FLSA anti-retaliation protects oral complaints; discussion of "fair notice")
- Lambert v. Ackerley, 180 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 1999) (FLSA protects employees who complain to employer; broader discussion of protected activities)
- NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U.S. 117 (1972) (antiretaliation protection includes participating in investigator interviews)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (causation inferred from close temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burdens and movant’s initial responsibility)
- Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288 (1960) (Congressional purpose behind FLSA anti-retaliation to permit employee cooperation with enforcement)