871 F. Supp. 2d 1010
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiff Anita Washington filed an amended complaint (Feb. 22, 2011) asserting six claims including FEHA discrimination, wrongful termination, failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.
- Defendant CCA of Tennessee, LLC moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication under Rule 56; court granted summary adjudication on the second and fourth claims and denied on the first, third, and fifth.
- Washington was demoted in 2007 and later terminated in March 2009 after an independent DOJ investigation sustained allegations of inappropriate relationship with an inmate and giving something of value to an inmate.
- Washington filed a DFEH complaint on January 26, 2009; the DFEH issued a right-to-sue letter on January 29, 2009, with disputes over whether exhaustion covered discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.
- The court applied FEHA and McDonnell Douglas standards, addressing whether the demotion and termination were pretextual and whether actions constituted protected activity and causation.
- Emotional distress and punitive damages were addressed; the court found discrimination could support an IIED claim and left punitive damages for trial, but granted summary adjudication on other FEHA-based claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of FEHA remedies | Washington exhausted remedies by filing with DFEH and receiving a right-to-sue letter. | Plaintiff failed to exhaust FEHA remedies for certain statutory claims. | Issues of exhaustion exist; summary adjudication denied for discrimination and failure-to-prevent discrimination claims. |
| Discrimination prima facie and pretext | Demotion and hostile treatment show race-based discrimination and pretext for termination. | Demotion based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons; no pretext shown. | Discrimination claim survives to trial; pretext shown via plaintiff's evidence of racial animus. |
| Failure to prevent discrimination | Employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in light of known harassment. | No discrimination established; failure-to-prevent claimPremised on lack of discrimination. | Factual issues persist; summary adjudication denied. |
| Retaliation | Protected activity (complaint) caused adverse actions (DOJ investigation and termination). | No causal link; timing insufficient to show retaliation. | Summary adjudication granted for retaliation; no triable causal link established. |
| Wrongful termination in public policy | Termination due to discrimination/retaliation violated public policy. | DOJ findings justified termination; no pretext shown. | Wrongful termination adjudication granted in favor of defendant. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Discrimination constitutes outrageous conduct supporting IIED. | If discrimination is proven, IIED may be viable; if not, not. | IIED claim survives; punitive damages claim cannot be dismissed at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (establishes FEHA disctim. framework and McDonnell Douglas standard)
- Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Court, 642 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2011) (reaffirms burden-shifting framework on summary judgment)
- Wills v. Superior Court, 195 Cal.App.4th 143 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (scope of FEHA exhaustion to include related retaliation claims)
- Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (scope rule: like and reasonably related to EEOC charge)
- King v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 426 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (employer belief in misconduct can sustain termination if reason is honest)