796 F. Supp. 2d 1148
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Fu, a Design Engineer III, worked in Defendant's San Francisco office beginning in Dec 2007; Ghahani, Design Engineer II, was hired in March 2008 in the same SF office.
- Fu began maternity leave Jan 2, 2009 and gave birth Jan 8, 2009; the parties agreed she would return May 18, 2009.
- Fu was laid off on Mar 17, 2009, before her planned return; Ghahani was laid off later, in Sept 2009.
- Plaintiff filed a multi-claim complaint in Sep 2009 in state court alleging FEHA, PDLL, retaliation, punitive damages, and related wrongful termination claims.
- Defendant removed to federal court on diversity grounds in Oct 2009; the court granted in part and denied in part summary judgment on various FEHA/PDLL claims.
- The court’s decision focuses on whether Fu’s FEHA discrimination claim survives under pretext and whether she was protected by the PDLL at the time of layoff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FEHA discrimination claim viability | Fu asserts direct evidence and pretext show discriminatory motive | No direct evidence; reasons for layoff are nondiscriminatory | Granted in part for Defendant; FEHA discrimination dismissed on summary judgment |
| PDLL coverage at layoff | Fu was to be reinstated May 18, 2009, hence PDLL protection at layoff | Fu was not on PDLL leave at layoff date | Material factual issues; summary judgment denied for PDLL claim |
| Unlawful retaliation under FEHA | Fu's retaliation claim mirrors discrimination evidence | No viable pretext after FEHA discrimination dismissal | Granted in part; FEHA retaliation dismissed along with related claims |
| Failure to prevent discrimination and related claims | Based on underlying FEHA discrimination | Dependent on FEHA discrimination merits | Granted in part; related claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (employer may be immune if non-discriminatory reasons shown; pretext required for triable issue)
- Godwin v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (direct evidence of discriminatory motive requires no inference to prove intent)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; plaintiff must show genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (test for summary judgment; no genuine issue for trial if record viewed as a whole favors movant)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting on summary judgment; movant must demonstrate absence of triable issue)
- Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392 (9th Cir. 1983) (pretext standard requires substantial evidence of discriminatory motive)