Rothman v. City of Los Angeles CA2/7
B258670
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Robert Rothman, a Jewish LAPD officer, was assigned to the CTSOB Liaison Unit (outreach to religious communities) in 2009 and felt isolated because the unit focused largely on Muslim outreach.
- While in the Liaison Unit Rothman declined some mosque outreach, resisted involving Muslim officers in Jewish outreach, and made an insulting comment about two officers praying in uniform after a New York Times article; supervisors counseled him about participation and conduct.
- After complaints about his reluctance to engage in Muslim outreach and the March 2011 incident with Officer Abdelmottlep, Deputy Chief Downing removed Rothman from the Liaison Unit and temporarily reassigned him to several other positions; Rothman received a Notice to Correct Deficiencies in May 2011.
- Rothman sued the City under FEHA for religious discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and under Labor Code § 1102.5(b) for whistleblower retaliation; the trial court granted summary judgment for the City.
- On appeal Rothman argued triable issues of fact existed as to discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and whistleblower retaliation; the Court of Appeal affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Religious discrimination under FEHA | Removal and adverse reassignments were motivated by anti-Semitic animus and incidents showing bias | Removal was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (poor fit for Muslim outreach, unit cohesion, misconduct) | Affirmed: City met burden; Rothman failed to show pretext or discriminatory intent |
| FEHA retaliation | Rothman opposed or reported discrimination and unlawful practices and was punished for complaining | Rothman did not engage in protected activity reasonably believing FEHA violations occurred | Affirmed: No sufficient evidence Rothman engaged in protected activity or causal link |
| Labor Code § 1102.5(b) retaliation | Rothman disclosed possible legal violations (e.g., separation of church/state, officers praying in uniform) to supervisors | Statements did not disclose violations of state/federal law; not protected disclosures | Affirmed: No reasonable belief of legal violation shown; not protected conduct |
| Hostile work environment (FEHA harassment) | Repeated insensitive comments, surveillance, scrutiny, denial of permits and personnel actions created hostile environment | Incidents were isolated/insensitive but not severe or pervasive; no evidence harassment was religion‑based | Affirmed: Conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create actionable hostile environment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden‑shifting in disparate treatment cases)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (summary judgment burden and employer legitimate‑reason showing in FEHA claims)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (FEHA retaliation standards)
- Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (definition and scope of harassment and discrimination under FEHA)
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal.4th 264 (severe or pervasive standard for hostile‑work‑environment claims)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (application of McDonnell Douglas framework in California)
- Rehmani v. Superior Court, 204 Cal.App.4th 945 (contrast on when isolated incidents can support hostile‑work‑environment claims)