Zeinali v. Raytheon Co.
636 F.3d 544
9th Cir.2011Background
- Zeinali alleges employment discrimination by Raytheon in promotion decisions and related claims.
- Raytheon contends Zeinali was not promoted because he lacked a top quartile ranking and/or security clearance.
- Zeinali seeks discovery of coworkers’ performance records to support his failure-to-promote claim.
- The district court denied relief on several theories, which the magistrate judge’s order adopted in part.
- The court reverses/remands on discovery, Labor Code §1102.5, and tortious termination; leave-to-amend ruling stands.
- The court addresses jurisdiction and merits issues in separate portions but resolves the remaining contentions on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zeinali’s failure-to-promote claim is timely barred | Zeinali was promoted in fact; time-bar should not bar claim | Timeliness as raised by Raytheon; need resolution | Raised issue not decided; remanded due to lack of below ruling |
| Whether Zeinali's coworkers were sufficiently similarly situated for discovery | Coworkers in top quartile compete for promotions; similar in material respects | Different job titles; not sufficiently similar | Reversed; remand to permit discovery with possible redaction |
| Whether the §1102.5 claim should be analyzed under subsection (c) rather than (b) | Complaint alleges subsection (c) theory | District court analyzed under subsection (b) | Vacated and remanded to apply correct subsection |
| Whether Zeinali stated a viable tortious termination in violation of public policy | Linked to discrimination and §1102.5 claims | Dependent on unresolved discrimination/§1102.5 rulings | Remanded consistent with other remands |
| Whether leave to amend the complaint should be denied | Amendment would cure defects | Amendment would prejudice Raytheon and duplicate issues | Affirmed denial of leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l Inc., 8 P.3d 1089 (Cal. 2000) (causal reasons for discrimination disputes; burden shifting for promotions)
- Golden Gate Hotel Ass’n v. City & County of S.F., 18 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1994) (general rule about issues not passed upon below may be preserved on appeal)
- AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards for amendment and misuse of discovery in employment cases)
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 194 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 1999) (timeliness and amendment standards in federal cases)
- Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 610 P.2d 1330 (Cal. 1980) (recognition of tort for termination in violation of public policy)
- Phillips v. St. Mary Reg’l Med. Ctr., 116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 770 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (public policy discriminatory termination)