Background

• Brian Burch, an African‑American SISA hired in 2001, worked in DMV’s Information Systems Division; he signed a release settling pre‑April 30, 2008 claims.
• After discovering and reporting a security flaw in ~August 2010, Burch’s computer was confiscated and he was investigated; Internal Affairs later exonerated him but he did not learn of the exoneration until June 2011.
• Burch took repeated medical leave for stress/anxiety in 2011–2013 and requested an accommodation that he not work under the ISD chain of command.
• DMV restricted his access during the investigation, moved his workspace consistent with its procedures, and ultimately made multiple job offers between 2012–2014; Burch accepted a SISA position in 2015.
• Burch sued for FEHA disability discrimination and retaliation, FEHA and Title VII race discrimination, and FEHA and Title VII retaliation; DMV moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Issues

• Issue: FEHA disability discrimination (failure to accommodate / discrimination) -> Plaintiff's Argument: Burch says his anxiety prevents him from working under ISD chain of command, so he is disabled and was not properly accommodated. -> Defendant's Argument: DMV argues Burch does not have a FEHA‑recognized disability and thus no discrimination claim. -> Held: Court grants summary judgment for DMV — inability to work under a particular supervisor is not a FEHA disability (a “boss‑ectomy” claim fails).

• Issue: FEHA disability retaliation / interactive process -> Plaintiff's Argument: Burch contends DMV failed to engage in the interactive process and retaliated for his accommodation request. -> Defendant's Argument: DMV argues (1) Burch’s 2011 accommodation request was not protected at that time and (2) he is not disabled under FEHA. -> Held: Court grants summary judgment for DMV — 2011 accommodation requests were not protected then and Burch has no recognized disability.

• Issue: Race discrimination under Title VII and FEHA (disparate treatment) -> Plaintiff's Argument: Burch alleges adverse actions (promotion denials, effects of investigation, delayed exoneration, constructive discharge) were race based. -> Defendant's Argument: DMV argues Burch did not show treatment different from similarly situated non‑protected employees; many alleged events fall after the release date. -> Held: Court grants summary judgment for DMV — Burch failed to show any comparator or that DMV treated him differently because of race.

• Issue: Retaliation under Title VII and FEHA for filing discrimination complaints -> Plaintiff's Argument: Burch says adverse actions were in retaliation for his 2003 and 2011 complaints. -> Defendant's Argument: DMV contends Burch cannot tie any adverse employment action to protected complaints (and many pre‑2008 matters were released). -> Held: Court grants summary judgment for DMV — no adverse action shown tied to protected activity; 2003 claims were released.

Key Cases Cited

• Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008) (limits court reliance on a party’s unsworn assertions lacking personal knowledge)
• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
• Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
• Higgins‑Williams v. Sutter Med. Found., 237 Cal. App. 4th 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (inability to work under a particular supervisor does not qualify as a FEHA disability)
• Hobson v. Raychem Corp., 73 Cal. App. 4th 614 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (same principle regarding supervisor‑specific inability)
• Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 248 Cal. App. 4th 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (timing of statutory amendment changing protection for accommodation requests)
• Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (defines adverse actions in retaliation context)
• Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements for FEHA mental disability discrimination)