Rehmani v. Superior Court
204 Cal. App. 4th 945
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Rehmani, a Muslim born in Pakistan, worked as a system test engineer at Ericsson from Feb 2007 until termination on Nov 13, 2009.
- He alleges harassment by Indian coworkers Patel, Choppa, and Ghevaria based on his Pakistani nationality and Muslim faith, and claims his supervisor Daftari failed to act on complaints.
- HR suspected Rehmani of sending confidential salary data emails in Nov 2009; Rehmani reported harassment between Nov 6 and 18, 2009, and was terminated after admitting involvement in the prohibited emails.
- Rehmani filed a December 2009 complaint naming Ericsson and the three coworkers, asserting harassment and related discrimination claims; eight total causes of action, with first two alleging harassment.
- The superior court granted summary adjudication on harassment claims, and on some discrimination claims; Rehmani sought a writ of mandate to overturn as to Ericsson.
- The appellate court held there are triable issues of fact regarding harassment based on national origin and religion, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment based on national origin | Rehmani claims hostile environment from Indian coworkers targeting non-Indians. | Ericsson argues incidents are isolated and not tied to national origin; HR investigation found no discrimination. | Triable issue; not as a matter of law. |
| Harassment based on religion | Rehmani asserts religious discrimination contributed to a hostile environment. | Ericsson contends conduct not tied to religion; evidence insufficient for hostile environment. | Triable issue; not as a matter of law. |
| Employer's failure to prevent or remedy harassment | Supervisor did not adequately address complaints; HR failed to investigate comprehensively. | Ericsson conducted investigation and took steps after complaints. | Triable issue; cannot resolve as a matter of law. |
| Adequacy of summary adjudication standard application | Merits of harassment claims should be evaluated by trial, not pretrial adjudication. | Standard procedures for summary adjudication were properly applied to dismiss harassing claims. | Writ granted to review and vacate the summary adjudication order as to Ericsson. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal.App.2009) (hostile environment standard and constructive interference with work)
- Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (Cal.2009) (overlapping discrimination and harassment evidence; employer liability when non-supervisory harassment)
- Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 121 (Cal.2000) (elements of implied prima facie harassment; summary adjudication guidance)
- Fisherman’s Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.4th 309 (Cal.App.2003) (pretrial writ review to avoid duplicative trials)
- Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (Cal.2005) (totality of circumstances in evaluating harassment severity)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (same framework for harassment in the workplace as sex-based harassment)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (severity/pervasiveness standard for hostile environment)