40 F. Supp. 3d 1269
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Michael McIntire, age 62, was hired as Transportation Care Manager for Ashley at Colton in Aug 2011 with a $72,500 salary.
- Plaintiff began three months of training, performing nonexempt tasks (clerical, billing, warehouse observations) while awaiting a full management role.
- During 2011, multiple coworkers made sexually explicit or inappropriate conduct complaints; Ashley conducted an investigation led by Qualman and Leighty.
- Plaintiff was terminated on Dec 23, 2011 for excessive absenteeism and the coworker complaints; timing followed his medical leave and colonoscopy in late 2011.
- Plaintiff alleges disability (Acute Stress Disorder, vertigo, depression) and age as bases for termination; Ashley classifies him as exempt for wage/hour purposes, but the court finds genuine disputes as to duties and training.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the motion for summary judgment, allowing wage/hour and disability-discrimination claims to proceed while dismissing age-discrimination and IIED claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FEHA age discrimination prima facie established? | McIntire alleges age-based termination. | Leighty’s stray age remark and same-actor hiring/firing negate inference of discrimination. | Defendants granted summary judgment on age discrimination. |
| FEHA disability discrimination prima facie and pretext? | Absences tied to disability; timing suggests pretext for termination. | Termination based on coworker complaints and attendance policy, non-discriminatory. | Disability discrimination survives; mixed evidence on pretext; summary judgment denied on this claim. |
| Exempt status under Wage Order No. 9 for wage/hour claims? | Plaintiff largely performed nonexempt tasks; training periods argue nonexempt status. | Plaintiff primarily engaged in exempt administrative duties. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; wage/hour claims survive summary judgment. |
| Waiting time penalties claim under Cal. Labor Code § 203? | Willful failure to pay wages can trigger penalties; disputed exemption does not moot penalty. | Good faith belief of exemption could negate penalties. | Penalty claim survives; not entitled to summary judgment. |
| IIED claim preemption by workers’ comp or dismissal on merits? | Termination conduct may support IIED independent of comp. | IIED premised on termination is preempted by workers’ compensation. | IIED claim dismissed; preemption applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1994) (used for burden-shifting framework in discrimination claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (classic three-step burden-shifting test for discrimination)
- Morgan v. Regents of Univ. of Cal, 88 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal. App. 2000) (evaluation of pretext and evidence in discrimination cases)
- Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. App. 2008) (temporal proximity and prima facie discrimination considerations)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 795 (Cal. 1999) (definition of 'primarily engaged' for exemptions; quantitative approach)