Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc.
2 Cal. App. 5th 1028
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Castro‑Ramirez was a long‑time DHE truck driver who informed his employer that he must be home in the evening to administer daily dialysis to his son; prior supervisors scheduled him accordingly.
- In March 2013 a new supervisor (Junior) began assigning Castro later shifts; Castro complained to his prior supervisor (Bermudez), who had told Junior of Castro’s needs and asked Junior to “work with” him.
- On April 22–23, 2013 Junior assigned Castro late shifts (April 23 was a noon start with a long Oxnard route); Castro said he could not perform the April 23 route because he needed to be home for his son and refused the assignment.
- Junior told Castro he was fired for refusing the assignment; DHE processed the separation as a voluntary resignation for ‘‘refused assignment.’'
- Castro sued under FEHA for associational disability discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination; he abandoned his failure‑to‑accommodate claim on appeal.
- The trial court granted DHE summary judgment and awarded costs; the Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment on four claims (and reversed the costs order).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associational disability discrimination (FEHA) — was Castro terminated because of his association with a disabled person? | Castro argues his son’s disability and repeated scheduling complaints were a substantial motivating factor in Junior’s decision to assign later shifts and terminate him. | DHE says there is no duty to accommodate associates, Junior had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (refusal to accept assignment), and federal ADA precedents preclude liability. | Reversed summary judgment: triable issues exist on discriminatory motive and pretext; FEHA’s associational language supports an associational discrimination claim. |
| Failure to accommodate (FEHA) — must employer reasonably accommodate an employee because of association with a disabled person? | Castro abandoned this cause on appeal (did not pursue it). | DHE argued no duty existed. | Court declines to decide whether FEHA requires accommodation for associates; grants summary adjudication on the abandoned failure‑to‑accommodate claim. |
| Retaliation (FEHA §12940(h)) — did Castro engage in protected activity and suffer adverse action causally connected? | Castro contends his repeated complaints about scheduling (and refusal to do the route) constituted opposition to unlawful practices and thus protected activity; temporal proximity supports causation. | DHE contends Castro only requested accommodation (not protected prior to AB 987) and cannot show causal link. | Reversed summary judgment: evidence permits a reasonable juror to find Castro engaged in protected opposition and that his termination was causally linked; legislative amendment (AB 987) discussed but not required to decide. |
| Costs award to defendant — was DHE entitled to statutory costs after reversal? | Castro argued FEHA actions should not produce costs against a losing plaintiff; he also contested prevailing‑party status. | DHE was awarded costs as prevailing party at trial. | Reversed: because judgment is reversed, DHE is no longer prevailing and the costs order is reversed; Castro recovers appellate costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (California Supreme Court) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Green v. State of California, 42 Cal.4th 254 (California Supreme Court) (elements of FEHA disability discrimination)
- Rope v. Auto‑Chlor Sys. of Wash., 220 Cal.App.4th 635 (California Court of Appeal) (recognizing associational disability discrimination under FEHA)
- Larimer v. IBM, 370 F.3d 698 (7th Cir.) (framework: expense, disability‑by‑association, distraction categories for associational claims under ADA)
- Miller v. Dep’t of Corr., 36 Cal.4th 446 (California Supreme Court) (protected activity need not use legal terminology; retaliation prima facie framework)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (California Supreme Court) (what constitutes protected opposition under FEHA)