McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc.
152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 154
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Employer Applied Signal terminated Employee McGrory in June 2009 after an outside investigation found he violated harassment/ethics policies and was uncooperative during the process.
- McGrory, a four-year, at-will employee, claimed his termination violated public policy and FEHA protections and that he was defamed by statements to coworkers.
- Investigator Sejal Mistry exonerated McGrory of gender/sexual-orientation discrimination but found he and a subordinate were uncooperative and untruthful during the investigation.
- Employer’s HR vice-president Forcht and CFO Doyle articulated three nondiscriminatory reasons for termination: policy violations, untruthful/uncooperative conduct, and fear of future legal liability; a male was chosen as his replacement.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Employer, concluding legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons existed and the allegedly slanderous statements were privileged; on appeal, the court affirmed, holding no triable issue as to antimale discrimination, protected status of investigation participation, or lack of privilege for statements to coworkers.
- Court acknowledged that at-will termination need not be for good cause and concluded Employee failed to present evidence of discriminatory motive; it also held that internal investigation participation is not a protected FEHA activity and that the defamation statements were conditionally privileged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McGrory’s termination was impermissibly motivated by gender/male discrimination | McGrory asserts antimale discrimination based on the investigation and disparate treatment | Employer contends reasons were nondiscriminatory and based on misconduct and investigation conduct | No triable issue; no evidence of discriminatory motive supported by the record |
| Whether participation in an internal investigation is a protected activity impairing termination rights | Participation in the investigation is protected by FEHA against retaliation | Internal investigation participation is not protected; discipline may follow misconduct | Public policy does not shield lying or withholding information during internal investigations; not protected activity under FEHA |
| Whether Employer’s statements to coworkers about McGrory’s termination were privileged defamation | Forcht’s statements were unprivileged and malicious | Statements were made in common interest to protect company and coworkers; privilege applies | Statements were conditionally privileged; no triable malice shown |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons | Reasons were pretextual and conceal true discriminatory motive | Employer’s reasons are legitimate and not shown as pretext; no evidence of discrimination | Summary judgment affirmed; no triable issue as to discriminatory motive or pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (at-will termination may occur for any reason not violating public policy)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext evidence alone insufficient to prove discrimination without showing discriminatory motive)
- Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 93 (Cal. 1997) (jury role in implied contract termination cases; good-faith reason standard)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (conflicting inferences in discrimination cases; framework for triable issues)
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) (evidence of hostile statements relevant to sex discrimination claims)