Serri v. Santa Clara University
226 Cal. App. 4th 830
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Serri, Director of Affirmative Action at Santa Clara University (1992–2007), was terminated in 2007 for failing to prepare annual Affirmative Action Plans (AAPs) and for misrepresentations about those Plans.
- The University asserted legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination related to AAP failure, nondisclosure, and misrepresentation, and sought summary judgment on all claims.
- Serri asserted FEHA discrimination, wrongful discharge, retaliation, harassment, Equal Pay Act violation, defamation, and emotional distress claims.
- Key contemporaneous events included deficiencies in AAP data, restructuring of reporting lines, an AAP consultant recommendation, and multiple internal investigations related to Policy 311.
- A central issue on appeal was whether after-acquired expert evidence about no adverse consequences could create a triable issue of discrimination, which the court held it could not; the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the University.
- The procedural posture involved multiple motions for summary judgment/adjudication and an appeal challenging these rulings; the appellate court reviewed de novo and addressed evidentiary rulings and continuance requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether after-acquired expert evidence of no adverse effects creates a triable issue. | Serri argues such post-termination expert evidence shows lack of adverse consequences, suggesting pretext. | Defendants contend no adverse consequences evidence can refute the employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons. | No; after-acquired expert evidence about no adverse consequences is limited in probative value for discrimination. |
| Whether the court correctly denied a second continuance for discovery. | Serri sought more time to depose witnesses (Campbell and PMK) to oppose summary judgment. | Defendants argued failings under section 437c(h) and lack of good cause. | Court did not abuse discretion; denial within its discretion given discovery history. |
| Whether the trial court abused by issuing a blanket ruling on evidentiary objections. | Blanket sustainment of objections prejudiced Serri’s ability to present evidence supporting triable issues. | Objections were properly sustained to numerous exhibits. | Yes; blanket ruling was an abuse of discretion; however, the error was harmless given the overall lack of triable issues. |
| Whether the defamation claims were properly adjudicated on summary judgment. | Serri asserts publications about her competence were false and defamatory. | Statements were true, privileged, or not published by defendants; strong compulsion issues lacking. | Summary adjudication of defamation was proper; no triable issue of malice or publication established. |
| Whether EPA (Equal Pay Act) claim showed substantial equality of work. | Ambelang’s and Serri’s jobs alleged to have substantially equal responsibility. | Jobs’ supervisory duties and responsibilities were not substantially equal. | Summary adjudication granted; two positions were not substantially equal in responsibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (2000) (employer's burden-shifting framework in FEHA actions and sufficiency of evidence to show nonpretextual reasons)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (three-step McDonnell Douglas framework for summary judgment in employment discrimination)
- Reid v. Google, Inc., 50 Cal.4th 512 (2010) (evidentiary objections in summary judgment preserved on appeal when not ruled on explicitly)
- Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243 (2009) (broken Biljac-style rulings on objections improper; review of evidentiary rulings)
- Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Internat., Inc., 17 Cal.4th 93 (1998) (Cotran standard for good faith and fair dealing in termination decisions; three Cotran factors)