Efrain Reynaga v. Roseburg Forest Products
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1395
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Efrain Reynaga (Hispanic), a long‑time millwright at Roseburg Forest Products, alleged repeated racially derogatory comments and harassment by lead millwright Timothy Branaugh and complained orally (Oct. 2009) and in writing (Dec. 2009).
- Roseburg investigated: initial managerial meeting in October, then retained an outside investigator (Vigilant) after the December written complaint and rescheduled Branaugh to minimize overlap with Reynaga.
- On Jan. 9, 2010, Efrain and his son Richard left work upon seeing Branaugh on site; they later refused to complete a Jan. 13 shift with Branaugh present and were suspended and then terminated on Jan. 18, 2010.
- Reynaga sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (hostile work environment, disparate treatment, retaliation) and state law analogs; the district court granted summary judgment for Roseburg.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part: held that genuine disputes of material fact exist on (1) hostile work environment (severity/pervasiveness and employer negligence), (2) disparate treatment as to locker break‑in and termination, and (3) retaliatory termination; affirmed summary judgment on other disparate‑treatment allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (severity/pervasiveness) | Branaugh’s repeated racial slurs, derogatory remarks, and intimidating acts created an objectively and subjectively hostile environment. | Incidents were isolated/offhand and did not alter employment conditions. | Reversed: a reasonable jury could find the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive. |
| Employer liability for harassment | Roseburg failed to take effective remedial action after notice (mere coaching; harassment continued). | Roseburg promptly investigated, hired Vigilant, and separated schedules — action was adequate. | Reversed as to negligence: factual dispute whether remedial measures were effective; vicarious liability rejected (Branaugh not demonstrated to have power to take tangible employment actions). |
| Disparate treatment — termination and locker search | Termination was pretextual and temporally proximate to complaints; locker was forcibly opened while a white coworker’s locker allegedly was not. | Termination was for walking off the job/refusing assignment; locker search was based on dog alerts/standard procedure. | Reversed for termination and locker incident: sufficient evidence to support prima facie cases and raise pretext/inference of discrimination; other disparate claims affirmed for summary judgment. |
| Retaliation — termination | Termination was causally linked to protected complaints (timing, differential discipline). | Termination was legitimate, nonretaliatory discipline for job abandonment/refusal. | Reversed on retaliatory termination: temporal proximity and comparative treatment create triable issues of pretext/causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dominguez‑Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep’t, 424 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review on summary judgment in employment cases)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (definition of genuine dispute of material fact)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile work environment standard: severe or pervasive)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (factors for assessing hostile work environment and employer liability)
- Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001) (severity/pervasiveness and cumulative effect analysis)
- McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (employer liability distinctions and standards)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext and judge/jury assessment of combined proof)
- Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of hostile work environment claim)
- Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459 (9th Cir. 1994) (hostile conduct standard: effect on work and employer remediation)