855 F. Supp. 2d 979
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Greer began employment with Lockheed Martin Corporation in 1962 and was laid off in April 2009 from the SPCF/COG unit within Enterprise Operations in Sunnyvale.
- The SPCF/COG unit provided technical and computer assistance to other groups; file-transfer training began in September 2007 and required clearance due to network classifications.
- Greer never became proficient at the file-transfer task and received ongoing one-on-one assistance for nearly a year, with training continuing up to her termination.
- Prior to the layoff, Greer performed clerical duties and was described as having a limited skill set; her 2008 performance rating was “basic contributor” due to her inability to perform the file transfer.
- In October 2008 Rogers became Greer’s manager; in 2009 LMC reorganized and reduced staffing, eliminating about 80 EBS positions including Greer’s; Rogers selected Greer for lay-off using multiple factors, with final lay-off approval by a Work Force Reduction Committee.
- The case was reassigned to the undersigned judge; only remaining claim is wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and defendant moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination violated FEHA retaliation (Gov. Code § 12940(h)) | Greer engaged in protected activity by complaining to HR and others about discriminatory treatment | No causal link shown between any protected activity and lay-off; Rogers had no knowledge of protected complaints | Plaintiff failed to establish a causal link; FEHA retaliation claim fails |
| Whether termination violated Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower protections) | Greer’s filing of a workers’ compensation claim constitutes protected activity | Plaintiff did not show protected activity contributed to termination; no evidence of complaints to agencies | No evidence protected activity contributed to lay-off; §1102.5 claim rejected |
| Deferral or denial of summary judgment due to pending discovery | Discovery is ongoing and appropriate to prevent premature ruling | Plaintiff did not diligently pursue discovery; Rule 56(d) not satisfied | Rule 56(d) not warranted; court proceeds to merits |
| Whether Rogers’ role as decision-maker violated public policy | Rogers acted as conduit for bias by Bandettini/Reid | Discrimination claims previously dismissed; decision to lay-off Greer ultimately made by committee | No triable issue; Greer not deprived by public policy violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (three-step burden-shifting retaliation framework under FEHA)
- Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 (Cal. 1999) (establishing elements of wrongful termination in public policy)
- Stevenson v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 880 (Cal. 1997) (public policy standards for wrongful discharge)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment burden shifting in federal context)
- Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist., 134 Cal.App.4th 1378 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (prima facie elements for retaliation under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5)
- Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 88 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal. App. Dist. 4) (causal link and burden shifting under § 1102.5)
- Mueller v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 176 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (whistleblower protections and internal personnel matters)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (establishes burden on movant for summary judgment)