Robert Duran v. Stock Building Supply West LLC
672 F. App'x 777
9th Cir.2017Background
- Robert Duran worked for Stock Building Supply West, LLC and sought leave to care for his ailing father.
- Duran contacted Stock HR (Angela Rosales) for information; Rosales emailed attachments describing CPFL (California Paid Family Leave) and CFRA/FMLA benefits and instructed Duran to submit Stock’s Leave of Absence (LOA) form and obtain certification via Sedgwick, Stock’s third-party administrator.
- Duran did not complete the LOA or apply through Sedgwick and remained absent from work; he alleges Stock interfered with CFRA rights and retaliated by terminating him.
- Stock moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it and awarded costs to Stock; Duran appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Stock did not interfere with or retaliate for CFRA leave, and that costs were properly awarded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stock interfered with Duran’s CFRA rights by providing inadequate/misleading notice about leave | Rosales’s email referenced only "kin care"/CPFL and was misleading, causing Duran not to pursue CFRA leave | Rosales’s email and attachments sufficiently described CPFL and CFRA and explained procedural steps (LOA, Sedgwick) | No interference: email + attachments provided adequate information; Duran failed to follow employer’s procedural requirements |
| Whether Stock was required to designate Duran’s leave as CFRA-protected | Duran contends Stock should have designated his leave as CFRA | Stock argues it had no duty to designate because Duran never submitted LOA or certification | No duty to designate because Duran did not comply with required leave-request procedures |
| Whether Duran exercised a CFRA right (prima facie retaliation element) | Duran claims he exercised CFRA leave rights by caring for his father | Stock asserts Duran never properly requested CFRA leave, so he did not exercise a CFRA-protected right | Duran failed to show he exercised CFRA leave; retaliation claim fails |
| Whether derivative claims (failure to prevent retaliation; wrongful termination in violation of public policy) survive | Duran says these claims flow from the CFRA interference/retaliation | Stock says derivative claims fail if primary CFRA claims fail | Derivative claims fail because underlying CFRA interference and retaliation claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2014) (employee must comply with employer’s usual procedural requirements to secure leave protection)
- Avila v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 440 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (prima facie CFRA retaliation requires proof that plaintiff exercised CFRA leave rights)
- Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 347 P.3d 976 (Cal. 2015) (addressing substantive state-law consequences of costs in context of California law)
- United States v. Georgia-Pacific Co., 421 F.2d 92 (9th Cir. 1970) (equitable estoppel principles)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (choice-of-law principle referenced regarding substantive vs. procedural characterization)