Goold v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc., 1:13-cv-00438

Goold, employed by Hilton Worldwide since 1998, was the Director of Finance at Bakersfield Doubletree; he faced audit-related performance issues in 2006-2009.
In 2009-2010, Medrano, a subordinate, complained of sexual harassment by HR Director Howard; Goold reported the complaint.
Goold's 2010-2012 evaluations showed ongoing performance concerns; he signed but may not have received certain disciplinary memos.
In 2010-2012, Medrano was disciplined for rest-break violations; Goold at times questioned the process and suggested potential retaliation concerns.
In 2012, Medrano was fired for long breaks; days later, Goold was informed he was being considered for termination; on May 2, 2012, he was fired after expressing concerns about Medrano and the process.
Court denies defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues regarding pretext and retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Goold’s termination was retaliation under FEHA	Goold engaged in protected activity and was fired soon after	Job performance issues justified firing	Triable issue on pretext; not entitled to summary judgment
Whether there is a prima facie case of retaliation	Protected activity linked to adverse action	Terminated for documented performance failures	Prima facie case shown; burden shifts to defendants on pretext
Whether defendants’ explanations were pretextual	Evidence of inconsistent investigations and possible malice	Legitimate nonretaliatory reasons supported by record	Material fact questions exist regarding pretext and malice
Whether the defamation claim survives	Statements about falsified time records were made with malice	Statements were privileged or lacked malice	Defamation claim survives; disputed malice and evidentiary issues preclude summary judgment
Who made the termination decision and whether the process was proper	Decision-making authority unclear; possible improper influence	Decision made by identified managers; proper process followed	Triable issue as to who decided and whether process was proper

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (material facts and genuine disputes require trial)
Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (retaliation standard under FEHA; circumstantial proofs acceptable)
Guz v. Bechtal Nat'l Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (prima facie case and burden shifting under FEHA)