Sawhney v. Saint Mary's College of Calif. CA1/1
A144311
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 18, 2016Background
- Deepak Sawhney, an Asian/Indian male tenured associate professor at Saint Mary’s College, sought promotion to full professor in 2012 and was later reassigned to the philosophy department in 2013.
- Dean Stephen Woolpert and the rank-and-tenure committee recommended against promotion based on concerns about recent scholarship (no publications since 2004), limited campus-wide service, and interpersonal/collegiality problems.
- Prior interpersonal issues: faculty chair Marsha Newman complained about Sawhney; an outside investigator found Newman’s recommendation to remove Sawhney as coordinator may have violated nondiscrimination policy, but found insufficient evidence Woolpert violated policy.
- Sawhney complained internally (2005, 2011–2012) about race/gender bias and filed a DFEH complaint in May 2013; he sued in August 2013 for discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation.
- The trial court granted the College’s summary judgment motion and awarded costs; the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment but reversed and remanded the costs award for reconsideration under Williams v. Chino Valley Fire Dist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination (failure to promote) | Woolpert harbored bias against Asians/Indians/males; his mediation siding with White women was discriminatory and infected the review process | College showed legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons: lack of recent peer-reviewed scholarship, limited service, and collegiality problems; decision-makers acted for legitimate reasons | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to raise triable issue of discriminatory intent or pretext; evidence of bias was too tenuous or ambiguous |
| Discrimination (reassignment) | Reassignment to philosophy was adverse and motivated by same bias/retaliation | Reassignment was a legitimate response to ongoing conflict; Sawhney is qualified for philosophy and reassignment was considered before DFEH filing | Affirmed: legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and no evidence of discriminatory motive |
| Retaliation | Complaints (2005, 2011–2012, DFEH May 2013) caused the denial of promotion and the reassignment shortly after DFEH service | Employer offered legitimate reasons for actions predating or independent of complaints; temporal gaps and prior plans negate causation | Affirmed: no causal nexus or pretext shown; long gaps and preexisting concerns undermine retaliation claim |
| Failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation | College failed to prevent the alleged discrimination and retaliation | Such claim fails when underlying discrimination/retaliation claims fail | Affirmed: derivative claim fails because primary claims failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (California standard for employment discrimination analysis)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment standard and triable issue analysis)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (elements of retaliation claim)
- Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., 61 Cal.4th 97 (limits on awarding fees/costs to prevailing defendants in discrimination suits)
- Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc., 72 Cal.App.4th 798 (inference when same actor hires and fires/promotes)
- Clark v. Claremont University Center, 6 Cal.App.4th 639 (contrast case where strong direct evidence of racial animus supported a discrimination verdict)
- Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc., 163 Cal.App.4th 327 (temporal proximity and pretext analysis in retaliation context)
- Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation, 173 Cal.App.4th 740 (admissibility and role of "me too" evidence)
- Pantoja v. Anton, 198 Cal.App.4th 87 (use of other victims’ testimony to show intent in harassment/discrimination actions)