246 Cal. App. 4th 180
Cal. Ct. App. 2nd2016Background
- Castro-Ramirez was a long‑time DHE truck driver whose son requires daily home dialysis; Castro is the only household member trained to operate the dialysis machine.
- For years Castro's supervisors routinely scheduled him so he could be home in the evening for dialysis; performance was satisfactory throughout employment.
- In 2013 a new supervisor (Junior) began assigning Castro later shifts; Castro complained to his prior supervisor (Bermudez) and to Junior that later routes prevented him from returning home in time.
- On April 23, 2013 Junior assigned Castro a noon start for a long route to Oxnard; Castro refused, Junior told him he was fired, and DHE processed the termination as a voluntary resignation for "refused assignment."
- Trial court granted DHE summary judgment on all FEHA causes of action and awarded costs; the Court of Appeal reversed as to associational disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and reversed the denial of Castro's motion to tax costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FEHA forbids discrimination based on association with a disabled person (associational discrimination) and whether plaintiff showed triable issue | Castro: his termination was substantially motivated by his association with his disabled son and by refusal to accommodate his schedule | DHE: no duty to accommodate associates under FEHA; termination was for refusal to perform assignment and not motivated by association | Court: FEHA covers associational disability; Castro raised triable issues on discriminatory motive and pretext — summary judgment improper |
| Whether FEHA imposes a duty to provide reasonable accommodations to employees associated with disabled persons | Castro: although he abandoned a standalone accommodation claim, the qualification element requires consideration of whether he could perform with reasonable accommodation | DHE: FEHA does not require accommodation for nondisabled associates (relying on ADA cases) | Court: FEHA's definition of "physical disability" includes association; employers may need to accommodate associates — accommodation relevance survives in discrimination analysis |
| Whether Castro engaged in protected activity for retaliation claim and whether causal link exists | Castro: complained to supervisors about scheduling changes tied to his son's dialysis and refused the assignment; those complaints were opposition to practices forbidden by FEHA | DHE: Castro's complaints were mere personal grievances or requests for accommodation, not opposition to unlawful practices; timing and facts do not show causation | Court: complaints and refusal could reasonably be read as protected opposition; temporal proximity and evidence permit inference of causation and pretext — triable issue exists |
| Whether prevailing‑party costs award should stand after reversal | Castro: reversal defeats DHE's prevailing‑party status | DHE: awarded costs below as prevailing party | Court: reversal means DHE is no longer prevailing; order denying motion to tax costs reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting in employment cases)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (standard for opposing summary judgment and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- Green v. State of California, 42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007) (elements of prima facie disability discrimination and qualification with or without reasonable accommodation)
- Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2005) (protected opposition can be inferred; reviewing courts must draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (scope of protected activity for retaliation under FEHA; need not use legal terms)
- Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc., 220 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (associational discrimination recognized; factual pattern supporting inference of employer motive)
- Larimer v. International Business Machines Corp., 370 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (illustrative ADA associational discrimination categories: expense, disability-by-association, distraction)