Gupta v. Trustees of the Cal. State University
40 Cal.App.5th 510
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Gupta, an assistant professor at San Francisco State University (SFSU), was on the tenure track and received mixed early reviews but strong later teaching evaluations, publications, and committee support for tenure.
- In 2009–2010 Gupta and other women of color complained about discrimination and management conduct in the School of Social Work; she later alleged retaliation by Dean Taylor for those complaints.
- SFSU denied Gupta early tenure (and later regular tenure), with Taylor recommending against tenure while contemporaneously praising a colleague (J.H.) who had weaker SETE scores and fewer publications.
- Gupta filed administrative charges, pursued arbitration (which prompted a renewed review), then sued under FEHA alleging discrimination and retaliation; the jury found for Gupta on retaliation and awarded damages.
- On appeal SFSU challenged (1) admission of comparator evidence (J.H.) without a showing Gupta was “clearly superior,” (2) the trial court’s refusal to give a special jury instruction requiring “clearly superior” qualifications, and (3) the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses as favoring Gupta.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: comparator evidence was admissible without a “clearly superior” prerequisite; the special instruction was properly refused; and the judge’s interventions were permissible and not prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of comparator evidence | Gupta: comparator J.H. is similarly situated and evidence of disparate treatment is admissible to show retaliation. | SFSU: comparator admissible only if Gupta was "clearly superior" to J.H. | Admissible without requiring a showing of "clearly superior" qualifications; similarity in material respects suffices. |
| Special jury instruction on comparator qualifications | Gupta: no special instruction needed; law requires only similarly situated comparators. | SFSU: jury should be instructed that plaintiff’s qualifications must be "clearly superior." | Trial court properly declined the special instruction; "clearly superior" not required for admissibility or for jury consideration here. |
| Trial judge questioning witnesses | Gupta: judge’s questions helped elicit testimony to clarify facts. | SFSU: judge intervened in a way that favored Gupta and undermined fairness. | Judge’s questioning was within discretion to develop the evidence, not prejudicial; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (California Supreme Court) (comparative evidence probative when employees similarly situated)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court) (framework recognizing comparative evidence to prove discriminatory intent)
- Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles, 75 Cal.App.4th 803 (Cal. Ct. App.) (requirements for comparator evidence: similarly situated in all relevant respects)
- Reeves v. MV Transp., Inc., 186 Cal.App.4th 666 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing summary judgment context; qualifications comparison alone may be insufficient at summary judgment)
- Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir.) (discusses superior qualifications evidence in summary judgment context)
- Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir.) (when employees are similarly situated)
- People v. Carlucci, 23 Cal.3d 249 (California Supreme Court) (trial judge may question witnesses to develop the evidence)
- Hargrave v. Univ. of Washington, 113 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (W.D. Wash.) ("clearly superior" discussion in summary judgment context)