Zamora v. Security Industry Specialists CA6
71 Cal.App.5th 1
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Zamora, an SIS field supervisor at Apple, injured his knee at work in June 2010, underwent surgery in May 2011, and remained on intermittent medical leave and workers’ compensation through 2012.
- SIS paid salary continuance for several months, then Insurer paid temporary disability; SIS inadvertently issued a duplicate salary payment ($2,166.67) and conditioned return-to-work discussions on repayment in internal communications.
- SIS evaluated supervisors during an Apple-driven budget cut, ranked Zamora among the lowest four of 19 supervisors, and included him in a reduction-in-force; two lower-ranked supervisors were demoted/retained rather than laid off.
- Zamora sued under FEHA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, wrongful termination (FEHA and common-law public policy), plus defamation and Labor Code §132a claims.
- The trial court granted summary adjudication on disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination (FEHA and common-law), and defamation, but denied adjudication on failure-to-accommodate and interactive-process claims; parties later dismissed the latter two and judgment entered for SIS.
- On appeal, the court reversed summary adjudication as to disability discrimination and FEHA-based and common-law wrongful termination (holding triable issues exist), but affirmed summary adjudication of the retaliation claim (holding pre-2016 law does not treat a mere accommodation request as protected activity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary adjudication was proper on FEHA disability discrimination (did Zamora show he could perform essential functions with/without accommodation and that disability motivated the layoff?) | Zamora argued he could perform a vacant/modified job (administrative supervisor or driver) with accommodations or finite leave; SIS failed to engage/offer reassignment and conditioned return on repayment, creating inference of discrimination. | SIS argued Zamora was not certified to return to work at layoff, RIF was legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, and Zamora lacked evidence that disability motivated layoff or that he could perform essential functions. | Reversed in part: triable issues exist on both ability-to-perform-with-accommodation and causation (failure to accommodate/interactive-process evidence, timing, vacant positions, and overpayment handling raise pretext inference). |
| Whether employer met burden showing legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for layoff (downsizing) and whether employee showed pretext | Zamora pointed to retained lower-ranked supervisors reassigned, timing near medical releases, internal emails conditioning return on repayment, and inconsistent handling of overpayment as evidence of pretext. | SIS relied on Apple budget cuts, competitive rankings placing Zamora among lowest four, and asserted neutral reason for selection in RIF. | Reversed as to disability claims: SIS’s RIF evidence was incomplete (did not explain reassignments) and plaintiff produced substantial circumstantial evidence of pretext. |
| Whether request for accommodation (and related time off) constituted FEHA-protected activity supporting retaliation claim | Zamora contended requesting accommodations/time off was protected; relied on post-2015 statutory amendment and legislative intent. | SIS argued, under pre-2016 law, mere requests for accommodation are not protected activity; even if protected, RIF was nondiscriminatory. | Affirmed re: retaliation: under pre-2016 law (Rope), mere accommodation requests were not protected; 2015 amendment (AB 987) is not retroactive, so no protected-activity showing for 2011 conduct. |
| Whether common-law wrongful termination (public policy) survives summary adjudication | Zamora contended the FEHA violations support the public-policy wrongful termination claim. | SIS argued FEHA claims failed, so public-policy claim fails. | Reversed: because FEHA discrimination claim survives summary adjudication, the related public-policy wrongful termination claim also survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel National, 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting and standards for summary judgment in employment cases)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (three-step framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, 166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (reassignment/available vacant positions and interactive-process duties can defeat summary adjudication)
- Wallace v. County of Stanislaus, 245 Cal.App.4th 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (disability discrimination differs from other protected classes; employer mistaken-belief liability)
- Moore v. Regents of University of California, 248 Cal.App.4th 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (statutory amendment creating protection for accommodation requests is prospective)
- Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, 220 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that a mere request for accommodation, without more, was not protected activity under pre-2016 FEHA)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext standards assessing sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence)
- Glynn v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.App.5th 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (elements of FEHA disability disparate-treatment claim)
- Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 129 Cal.App.4th 1133 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (direct-evidence v. circumstantial-evidence analysis in discrimination cases)