Lapping v. Wydham Vacation Ownership, Inc.
4:19-cv-07549
N.D. Cal.Oct 29, 2020Background
- Lapping worked for Wyndham Vacation Ownership (WVO) as a sales manager at San Francisco properties; Milholland and Muro were supervisors at various times.
- Multiple employees (including Niloufer Bassa) complained in early 2017 about deceptive sales practices, hostile management at the Donatello site, and specific misconduct by Muro and others.
- WVO retained outside counsel Baker Hostetler on February 13, 2017 to investigate complaints at the Donatello; Baker interviewed employees and issued a report on March 17, 2017 finding deceptive sales practices and recommending termination of Lapping and others.
- Lapping emailed HR on February 13, 2017 complaining about Muro’s conduct; WVO terminated Lapping (and Muro) on March 22, 2017 based on the Baker investigation.
- Lapping sued asserting wrongful termination in violation of public policy, retaliation under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5, UCL, fraud, and negligent hiring/retention; the court granted summary judgment to WVO and Milholland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful termination / § 1102.5 retaliation | Lapping was fired in retaliation for complaining about illegal/deceptive practices | Lapping was fired for his own misconduct as found by independent Baker investigation | Temporal proximity creates prima facie inference but no evidence of pretext; SJ for Defendants |
| Fraud | WVO and Milholland misrepresented that employees would be supervised lawfully (Code of Conduct/onboarding statements) | Code/practices are aspirational statements, not factual misrepresentations | Aspirational statements are non-actionable opinions; fraud claim fails; SJ for Defendants |
| Negligent hiring, retention, supervision | WVO knew or should have known of misconduct by Muro/Milholland and failed to supervise/retain properly | No admissible evidence WVO knew of prior similar misconduct or breached duty | Plaintiff did not produce evidence of breach or causation; SJ for Defendants |
| UCL (unlawful, unfair, fraudulent business practices) | UCL claim derives from wrongful termination and fraud | Underlying claims fail, so UCL claim fails | Derivative UCL claim fails; SJ for Defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (court views evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant; genuine issue standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc., 163 Cal. App. 4th 327 (temporal proximity may establish prima facie retaliation but is not alone sufficient to show pretext)
- Wills v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. App. 4th 143 (requirements for comparator evidence to show disparate treatment/pretext)
- Gupta v. Trustees of California State Univ., 40 Cal. App. 5th 510 (comparative evidence must show similarly situated employees)
- Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631 (elements of common-law fraud)
- Retail Wholesale & Dep’t Store Union Local 338 Ret. Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 845 F.3d 1268 (aspirational corporate statements are non-actionable)