Gilberto Santillan v. USA Waste of California
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6027
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Santillan, a 53-year-old garbage truck driver employed by USA Waste since 1979, was fired twice: first on December 5, 2011, and again effectively on July 24, 2012 after a failed reinstatement process.
- After community support helped secure USA Waste’s contract renewal in March 2011, Santillan was praised by residents; many later sent letters demanding his reinstatement after the December 2011 firing.
- On May 17, 2012 USA Waste and Santillan executed a Settlement and Last Chance Agreement providing for reinstatement contingent on medical/drug clearance, a background check, and “e-Verify.” Santillan cleared drug, physical, and background checks.
- When Santillan presented identification to complete Form I-9 in July 2012, USA Waste’s HR required an employment-authorization number and expiration date and sent him home; Santillan was terminated on July 24, 2012 for failing to present those documents within three days.
- Santillan sued for wrongful termination under California public policy on two theories: age discrimination (FEHA) and retaliation for using an attorney in the settlement negotiations; the district court granted summary judgment for USA Waste and denied leave to amend; the Ninth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Santillan established a prima facie age-discrimination claim under FEHA | Santillan argued he was >40, competent, terminated, part of a cluster of older Spanish-speaking employees fired after Kobzoff became manager, and replaced by a substantially younger/inferiorly experienced worker | USA Waste argued Santillan failed to show the "some other circumstance" element suggesting discriminatory motive | Court: Santillan established a prima facie case (cluster terminations + replacement age/experience gap sufficed) |
| Whether USA Waste produced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing Santillan (burden-shifting) | Santillan argued IRCA did not apply because he was a continuing employee reinstated by settlement and California public policy bars conditioning reinstatement on immigration verification | USA Waste relied on IRCA/Form I-9/e-Verify and the Settlement Agreement’s contingencies as lawful, nonretaliatory reasons for termination | Court: USA Waste failed to rebut presumption — IRCA exemptions applied and conditioning reinstatement on immigration verification violated California public policy |
| Whether Santillan established a prima facie retaliation claim for using an attorney | Santillan argued that retaining an attorney to negotiate reinstatement is protected activity under state public policy and his termination shortly thereafter establishes a causal nexus | USA Waste implicitly argued termination was for legitimate I-9/e-Verify reasons unrelated to attorney representation | Court: Santillan engaged in protected activity and established causation (temporal proximity); USA Waste’s proffered reason was not legitimate |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend to add a breach-of-contract claim | Santillan contended he should be allowed to amend at summary judgment hearing to add breach claim | USA Waste and district court argued request was untimely (8 months after deadline) and plaintiff failed to show diligence or good cause under Rule 16(b) | Court: Affirmed denial — no abuse of discretion (lack of diligence/good cause) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes the three‑part burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317 (California allocation of burdens at summary judgment in employment cases)
- Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912 ( Ninth Circuit on prima facie proof and inference from circumstances)
- Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (group terminations can support prima facie age discrimination)
- Schechner v. KPIX‑TV, 686 F.3d 1018 (replacement substantially younger with inferior qualifications supports prima facie age claim)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (standard of review on summary judgment in Ninth Circuit)