Dodson v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc.
679 F. App'x 551
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lee Dodson, a FedEx employee, sued for age discrimination and retaliation under California’s FEHA after being passed over for a Sales Executive promotion and not receiving a California placement when her El Segundo office closed.
- District court granted summary judgment to FedEx; Dodson appealed.
- FedEx’s stated reasons: Dodson lacked required "Role Model and Leadership" traits, needed supervisory assistance on pricing/customer issues, missed/required help with routine tasks (pipeline reports, Excel), and scored poorly in panel interviews for placement.
- Dodson relied on her testimony that younger colleagues were promoted or placed more favorably and cited her seniority/experience as evidence of qualification.
- Timing: Dodson filed a DFEH charge in March 2014; the office closed in August 2014. The record contained little detail about how relocation/placement decisions were made or the qualifications/performance of the colleagues who received California placements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dodson established age discrimination by circumstantial evidence (prima facie + pretext) | Dodson says she was qualified (seniority/experience) and younger employees were treated better | FedEx says it had legitimate, non‑discriminatory reasons: poor leadership/role‑model performance, need for supervision, missed tasks, low interview scores | Court assumed prima facie met but held Dodson failed to show pretext; summary judgment for FedEx affirmed |
| Whether FedEx’s explanations for not promoting/placing Dodson were pretextual | Dodson points to comparative treatment of younger employees | FedEx points to specific performance problems and poor interview scores; record lacks evidence comparing coworkers’ duties/performance | Court held Dodson did not present evidence showing FedEx’s reasons were internally inconsistent or unbelievable; no pretext shown |
| Whether Dodson established retaliation under FEHA (protected activity, adverse action, causation) | Dodson concedes protected activity (DFEH charge) and adverse action (not offered CA placement) and relies on temporal proximity | FedEx argues lack of causal connection and that placements reflected qualifications; timing alone insufficient | Court held timing plus record did not establish causation; prima facie retaliation not shown; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether, even if prima facie retaliation existed, FedEx’s stated reasons were pretextual | Dodson argues disparate treatment suggests pretext | FedEx points to same legitimate reasons (performance, interview scores) | Court held Dodson failed to show pretext for the placement decision |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for circumstantial discrimination proof)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (California law on discrimination prima facie and burdens)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (prima facie presumption drops out once employer articulates legitimate reason)
- Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115 (pretext requires showing employer’s explanation is not credible)
- Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885 (low evidentiary burden to establish prima facie case)
- Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (need for comparator employees to be similarly situated)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (elements for retaliation under FEHA)