350 F. Supp. 3d 899
D. Ariz.2018Background
- Maner worked for Dr. Garfield and Dignity Health from 2008; Garfield supervised Maner and had a long-term romantic relationship with coworker Leili Shi.
- Maner performed well through 2010, then requested to work remotely from Texas for probation reasons; Garfield initially agreed but later criticized Maner’s remote work and issued a negative 2011 review recommending return to Phoenix or termination.
- Maner submitted internal letters appealing the review and complaining about funding and alleged nepotistic allocation of funds; he later sued Dignity Health under Title VII for sex discrimination and retaliation.
- Maner’s discrimination theory alleged Garfield favored his female paramour (Shi), resulting in Maner’s adverse treatment; Dignity Health moved for summary judgment on both claims.
- The court treated as undisputed that favoritism toward a paramour, if present, was the factual basis for Maner’s claims and that Maner was an at‑will employee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination under Title VII | Garfield favored his female romantic partner (Shi) over Maner, so Maner (male) suffered sex discrimination | Favoritism for a paramour is not sex discrimination under Title VII; Maner lacks evidence of discrimination based on sex | Court: Grant summary judgment for Dignity Health — paramour favoritism is not Title VII sex discrimination |
| Retaliation under Title VII | Maner’s letters (Vallier, Lukas, Review Response) opposed unlawful practices and triggered retaliatory termination | Maner did not engage in protected activity because complaints about paramour favoritism do not reasonably allege Title VII violations | Court: Grant summary judgment — only Vallier letter arguably raised EEOC/nepotism; but under Ninth Circuit precedent the complained conduct (paramour favoritism) does not "fairly fall" within Title VII, so no protected activity |
| Causation (but-for) for retaliation | Maner argues termination was to free funds to keep Shi | Dignity Health argues no but-for causal link and legitimate non‑retaliatory reasons (performance/funding) | Court: Did not need to decide but indicated plaintiff failed at protected-activity threshold and summary judgment granted |
| Sealing request | Parties sought to seal sensitive deposition/materials attached to dispositive motion | Dignity invoked protective order and privacy concerns | Court: Granted the joint motion to file the identified documents under seal |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- DeCintio v. Westchester Cty. Med. Ctr., 807 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1986) (paramour favoritism is not sex discrimination under Title VII)
- Candelore v. Clark Cty. Sanitation Dist., 975 F.2d 588 (9th Cir. 1992) (Ninth Circuit has not adopted paramour theory)
- Sias v. City Demonstration Agency, 588 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1978) (protected activity requires reasonable belief that conduct violates Title VII)
- Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1988) (complained conduct must "fairly fall" within Title VII to be protected activity)
- Moyo v. Gomez, 32 F.3d 1382 (9th Cir. 1994) (discusses reasonableness of plaintiff's belief; treated as limited/partially inconsistent with Learned)