Doyen v. City of Los Angeles CA2/4, B299745

Anthony Doyen, an LAPD officer/sergeant, testified in a coworker’s FEHA/retaliation lawsuit (Bender) and thereafter was assigned to the Bomb Squad, where he alleges he was shunned, excluded from training, and treated worse than peers. Supervisors (Lt. Smith and Sgt. Salinaz) knew and did not stop the conduct.
Despite no negative written reviews, Doyen was required to transfer out of the Bomb Squad in 2012 to promote; he later obtained a coveted Internal Affairs assignment and was upgraded to Sergeant II.
In Feb 2014 Doyen applied for a Bomb Squad supervisor opening (Sergeant I plus 3 paygrade). He met the objective criteria and was the only candidate already certified as a bomb technician, but the panel (including Smith and Salinaz) did not select him.
Doyen sued the City under FEHA §12940(h) and Labor Code §1102.5 for retaliation; City moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) no adverse employment action because the job was a rank downgrade and (2) no causal link given the long lapse and intervening promotions. The trial court granted summary judgment.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding there were triable issues of fact whether the refusal to consider Doyen was a materially adverse employment action (paygrade/overtime differences) and whether a causal link existed (continuous retaliatory treatment 2008–2012 and involvement of the same supervisors in 2014). The court noted a disputed factual issue about Doyen’s rank at application.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failing to consider Doyen for the Bomb Squad supervisor position constituted an adverse employment action	Denial was adverse because the position had a higher paygrade ("plus 3") and greater overtime/opportunity despite any rank downgrade	Not adverse: position was a downgrade in rank (Sergeant II → Sergeant I), so no materially adverse change in terms or privileges	Reversed summary judgment — triable issue exists: evidence that the position would materially affect terms (pay/overtime) could make it an adverse action
Whether there is a causal link between Doyen’s 2008 protected activity and the 2014 non-selection	Continuous retaliation began in 2008 and persisted through 2012; same supervisors involved in the 2014 decision permit an inference of continuing retaliatory intent despite a 2-year hiatus	Lapse of ~6 years and intervening promotions break causation; no causal nexus	Reversed summary judgment — triable issue exists: pattern of earlier retaliation plus involvement of the same supervisors supports a reasonable inference of retaliatory intent

Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (retaliation actionable only where adverse action materially affects terms, conditions, or privileges of employment)
Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dept., 150 Cal.App.4th 350 (special-duty vs platoon-duty assignments not adverse where pay, promotion opportunity, and overtime are equal)
Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 157 Cal.App.4th 413 (a pattern of retaliatory conduct can sustain causation despite a time gap)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment standard: consider all evidence and inferences favoring the nonmoving party)