481 F.Supp.3d 1076
S.D. Cal.2020Background
- Martinez was a long‑time Costco Mexico Buyer (promoted 2007) whose job posting described periodic international travel; travel to Mexico was formally emphasized as an essential duty in Aug.–Nov. 2018.
- Martinez has a diagnosed history of severe anxiety and panic attacks; her doctors advised she should not travel to Mexico because it exacerbated her condition.
- In Aug.–Nov. 2018 Costco management (VP Mantanona and GMM Daleo) conditioned approval of non‑Mexico travel on Martinez first traveling to Mexico; a November 8, 2018 memo warned she would be moved to an ICS (non‑management) role or given time to find another position if she refused.
- Martinez took medical leave for anxiety/depression (Nov. 2018–Jan. 2019; later a six‑month leave starting Feb. 2019), accepted another job, and resigned March 7, 2019.
- Martinez sued for FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, FEHA retaliation and constructive discharge, failure to prevent discrimination, Labor Code § 1102.5 retaliation, negligent supervision, and IIED; Costco moved for partial summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment only on negligent supervision and denied summary judgment on the remaining claims (disability discrimination, retaliation, constructive discharge, interactive process, failure to prevent, §1102.5, IIED) and on punitive damages as premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FEHA disability discrimination | Martinez was disabled; conditioning trade show travel and threatening demotion/leave were adverse actions and pretext for discrimination | Costco had legitimate, non‑discriminatory reasons: Mexico travel is an essential function and alternatives were offered; leave was requested/granted | Denied summary judgment — triable issues on adverse action and pretext |
| FEHA retaliation | Raising safety/travel concerns and requesting accommodation constituted protected activity; adverse actions followed | Retaliation claim alleged under wrong FEHA subsection and lacks causal link | Denied summary judgment — protected activity, adverse action, and pretext issues remain |
| Constructive discharge | Ongoing pressure to travel, threatened demotion and unpaid leave, and failed accommodation made conditions intolerable | Martinez applied for other jobs while on leave; resignation not compelled as a matter of law | Denied summary judgment — factual dispute whether working conditions were objectively intolerable |
| Failure to engage in interactive process | Costco knew of Martinez’s anxiety years earlier and failed to timely, in good faith, explore accommodations | Costco claims interactive process began when formal medical notice was provided in 2019 and it engaged with Leave Director | Denied summary judgment — factual dispute when duty was triggered and adequacy of engagement |
| Negligent supervision | Costco negligently hired/retained Mantanona despite complaints and risk of discriminatory conduct | No evidence Costco knew Mantanona had propensity to discriminate against disabled employees | Granted summary judgment for Costco — plaintiff failed to show employer had requisite prior knowledge of such propensity |
| IIED | Managers’ conduct (singling out, threats of demotion/leave, ignoring accommodation requests) was extreme/outrageous and caused severe distress | Personnel actions are not IIED; claim preempted by Workers’ Compensation if based on employment actions | Denied summary judgment — WCA preemption inapplicable because claim arises alongside discrimination; triable issues on outrageousness and harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment framework; moving party's burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and drawing inferences)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (FEHA discrimination analysis and use of McDonnell Douglas)
- Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (scope of adverse employment actions under FEHA)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (contextual analysis of adverse actions/retaliation)
- Turner v. Anheuser‑Busch, Inc., 7 Cal.4th 1238 (Cal. 1994) (standards for constructive discharge)
- Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (employer duty to engage in interactive accommodation process)
- Dunlap v. Liberty Natural Prods., Inc., 878 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2017) (failure to engage in interactive process where employer had prior notice)