Light v. Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation
D070361
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Light worked as a permanent intermittent Office Assistant at the Department of Parks and Recreation (Ocotillo Wells). Her supervisors were Seals (direct) and Dolinar (Seals's supervisor).
- After coworker Hurley filed a FEHA complaint, Light cooperated with investigators. Seals pressured employees to lie to investigators and threatened retaliation; she later ostracized and confronted Light on Feb 23, physically blocking/pushing a door that struck Light.
- Following the investigation, Seals was placed on administrative leave and retired; Dolinar was later placed on leave and retired. Light experienced loss of work hours (scheduled to zero), denial/rescission of promised training, and was not selected for a promoted position; she took medical leave and obtained workers’ compensation for emotional injuries.
- Light sued Department, Seals, and Dolinar asserting FEHA retaliation, disability discrimination (failure to accommodate and interactive process), failure to prevent, assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeal (Div. One) reversed in part and affirmed in part: FEHA retaliation and failure-to-prevent claims against the Department survive; FEHA disability claims against Department were affirmed (no triable issue); IIED and assault survive as to Seals but not Dolinar; false imprisonment ruling not appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FEHA retaliation by Department | Light argued her cooperation with Hurley was protected activity and subsequent actions (isolation, reassignment, loss of training, failure to promote, reduction to zero hours) were materially adverse and causally linked | Dept. claimed no adverse action (seasonal layoff) and offered legitimate nonretaliatory reasons (budget, seasonal hours, poor interview performance) | Reversed: triable issues exist on adverse action and retaliatory intent; retaliation and derivative failure-to-prevent claims survive |
| FEHA disability discrimination (intentional discrimination) | Light claimed PTSD/panic disorder stemming from workplace retaliation and that adverse actions continued after Department knew of her disability (Sept 2012) | Dept. argued it reasonably accommodated and lacked notice of disability prior to adverse acts; offered vacant Office Assistant positions as accommodation | Affirmed: no triable issue that Dept. knew of disability before adverse actions; after notice Dept. offered reasonable accommodation and interactive process was adequate |
| Failure to accommodate / interactive process (FEHA §§12940(m),(n)) | Light argued offered positions were illusory and Dept. failed to engage in a timely, good-faith process | Dept. pointed to prompt offers of two Office Assistant positions (one at Ocotillo Wells, one in San Diego) and follow-up to obtain medical documentation | Affirmed: offers were reasonable accommodations; interactive process claim fails because reasonable accommodations were made and accepted |
| IIED against supervisors / workers' comp exclusivity | Light argued IIED based on FEHA-violative retaliation/discrimination falls outside workers’ compensation exclusivity and survives as tort against supervisors | Defendants argued workers’ compensation is exclusive remedy (Miklosy) and supervisors cannot be personally liable for FEHA retaliation | Mixed: court holds IIED based on conduct violating FEHA is not barred by workers’ compensation; triable issues exist as to Seals (reversed) but not Dolinar (affirmed) |
| Assault (Seals) | Light alleged the Feb 23 encounter—Seals blocked and pushed door that hit Light—constituted assault | Seals argued no intent to cause harmful/offensive touching and no threat sufficient for assault | Reversed as to Seals: triable facts exist that Seals’s conduct placed Light in apprehension of harmful/offensive touching; assault claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (FEHA retaliation prima facie and burden-shifting framework)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment burden and standard for triable issues)
- Miklosy v. Regents of the University of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (workers' compensation exclusivity; exceptions analyzed)
- Vacanti v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 24 Cal.4th 800 (workers' compensation exclusivity and compensation bargain)
- Livitsanos v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 744 (emotional injury generally compensable under workers' compensation but exceptions exist)
- Accardi v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.4th 341 (IIED based on discriminatory conduct may fall outside workers' compensation exclusivity)
- Puckett, People v., 44 Cal.App.3d 607 (assault—fact pattern where door pushed against victim supported assault)
- Janken v. GM Hughes Elec., 46 Cal.App.4th 55 (IIED standards; insults/indignities insufficient for tort)