GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before this court is defendant's motion for summary judgment, filed March 24, 2014. In light of discovery matters decided after the motion and opposition were filed, the court permitted plaintiff to file a supplemental opposition and defendant to file a reply after those motions were decided and discovery produced. Having reviewed all of the briefing,
This action concerns plaintiff's claim for wrongful termination based on racial discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
In its summary judgment motion, defendant represents that plaintiff was terminated, aka laid off, due to budget cuts in the County, and job eliminations in particular in the Employment and Economic Development Department ("EEDD") department where plaintiff worked. Plaintiff asserts that defendant's excuse of business necessity due to funding loss as the basis for its decision was a pretext for his termination.
Although there are many facts presented by both parties and fleshed out through the court's review, only a few significant and undisputed facts form the lynchpin for the court's recommendation, to wit: Plaintiff's seniority was not affected by his one unsatisfactory performance evaluation. The County had a racially neutral policy for layoffs which was based on seniority only. That policy was followed and seniority was the only basis for the County's decision in the layoffs which resulted in plaintiff's termination. The layoffs occurred as a result of budget reductions and decreased funding to the department where plaintiff worked. All of the other allegations and disputed facts relating to discrimination/pretext had no bearing on plaintiff's layoff which was based strictly on seniority. Because the material facts are undisputed, defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted.
According to the complaint, filed November 13, 2012, plaintiff, an African-American, was employed by the County of San Joaquin ("County") in a civil service position from 1998 to 2011. (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant Solis, the EEDD Director, targeted plaintiff for dismissal even though plaintiff had more seniority than forty other employees. He further alleges that the EEOC found no basis for his two complaints, filed in 2003 and 2007, and then prevented his appeals from being heard. (
The complaint further alleges that defendants then developed criteria to permit lay-offs in the event of staff reductions based on consideration of individuals who had received unsatisfactory evaluations regardless of seniority. According to the complaint, this criteria was not applied to plaintiff's peers who were not African-American. (
Plaintiff began his employment with the County in July, 1998 and was initially hired as Employment Specialist I in the EEDD. He was promoted to Specialist Level II on August 2, 1999. His employment ended on July 4, 2011. Disputed but asserted by defendant is the reason for the termination, a reduction in work force. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ("SUF") ¶ 1.) The County underwent budget reductions between 2008 and 2011, eliminating 1,000 of the County's 6,200 positions during this time. (
Plaintiff filed his first complaint of discrimination based on race, political affiliation and union position as shop steward, through a Civil Service Rule 20 complaint in March, 2004, alleging denial of promotion. (
EEDD positions were deleted in the 2005-2006 year; however, plaintiff's position was not eliminated. (
Businesses assigned to plaintiff also complained about him. For example, one company flew in from out of state for a job fair, only to learn that its application had not been processed properly and it did not have a spot reserved at the fair. This company requested to be transferred to a different job developer. (SUF ¶ 39.) When Ms. Castellanos informed plaintiff of the transfer, he stated that her email was threatening. (
Plaintiff filed another Civil Service Rule 20 complaint in 2007 alleging that Ms. Castellanos harassed, accused, and threatened him, which the County found to be unsubstantiated. (
In February, 2010, plaintiff filed an EEOC charge for retaliation relating to his 2009 performance review. (
Plaintiff's performance review in December, 2009 rated him as unsatisfactory based on his development of substantially less OJT contracts than his counterparts.
Plaintiff's special performance review to assess his progress, covering the period December 18, 2009 to March 18, 2010 was satisfactory. Plaintiff refused to sign it. (
The aforementioned facts have been fleshed out, along with plaintiff's version of the facts as raised in his oppositions. The court finds the following ultimate facts to be significant to the decision and undisputed.
1. The County's Layoff Policy was based on seniority only. (SUF ¶ 5.)
2. Plaintiff did not lose seniority as a result of his unsatisfactory evaluation in 2009. (SUF ¶ 20.)
3. The County's layoff policy based on solely on seniority was implemented in plaintiff's layoff in 2011. (SUF ¶ 7.)
4. Plaintiff was laid off because he had less seniority than other employees and did not have bumping rights. (SUF ¶ 7.)
5. Budget cuts and lack of funding caused the round of layoffs which resulted in plaintiff's separation. (SUF ¶¶ 2-4.)
The "purpose of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial."
If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist.
In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the non-moving party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial."
Title VII provides that an employer may not "discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race . . . or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In disparate treatment cases, plaintiffs can prove intentional discrimination through direct or indirect evidence. "Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption."
Plaintiff has provided no direct evidence of racial discrimination or harassment that, if believed, proves the fact of discriminatory animus without inference or presumption. Thus, plaintiff's claims for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII are subject to the
Plaintiff has the burden of establishing a prima facie case by showing that "(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he experienced an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably, or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination."
If plaintiff proffers sufficient evidence to establish genuine issues of material fact, the burden shifts to defendant.
"[A] plaintiff can prove pretext in two ways: (1) indirectly, by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is `unworthy of credence' because it is internally inconsistent or otherwise not believable, or (2) directly, by showing that unlawful discrimination more likely motivated the employer."
The Ninth Circuit has instructed that district courts must be cautious in granting summary judgment for employers on discrimination claims.
As a preliminary matter in regard to the third prong, what constitutes an adverse action in this case must be defined, as the parties dispute whether plaintiff's unsatisfactory evaluation in 2009 was an adverse action. Although plaintiff alleges that he lost seniority credits as a result of that evaluation, he has pointed to no evidence in support. Meanwhile, defendant points to plaintiff's deposition in which he finally conceded that he did not lose seniority hours as a result of this evaluation, based on a list of seniority hours prepared by Human Resources for this time period, reflecting no loss of seniority hours. (Bossuat Dec., Ex. A at 91-92; ECF No. 52-1 at 27-28.) Defendant has separately provided evidence that plaintiff lost no seniority hours as a result of this evaluation. (Goodman Dec., ¶ 11, Exs. M, N, O; ECF No. 53 at 3.)
Plaintiff, on the other hand, has provided Civil Service Rule 13, which provides for uses of Employee Performance Reports:
ECF No. 66 at 78.)
Plaintiff has also submitted a document entitled, "Employee Performance Guidelines," which states in part that "performance evaluations are necessary" to "document employee performance and provide support for merit increases, promotions, or terminations." (
To the extent that defendant objects to plaintiff's evidence as lacking foundation and/or inadmissible hearsay, these objections must be overruled insofar as they are made to plaintiff's submission of objective evidence such as the documents referenced above. Evidence which is not admissible, but which could be admissible at trial, must be considered.
Accordingly, plaintiff's otherwise inadmissible objective evidence may be considered for purposes of summary judgment. Superficially these rules and guidelines appear to contradict defendant's evidence that the 2009 performance evaluation was not considered in the layoff determination. Nevertheless, when read in proper context, the guidelines refer to those situations where termination is based on cause; it does not appear to relate to the circumstance of a layoff. Plaintiff concedes, both in his deposition and in his supplemental opposition, that he did not lose seniority credits on account of the evaluation at issue.
Plaintiff does assert that in any event, based on the civil service rules, defendant must have had an "invidious" purpose in giving him an unsatisfactory evaluation, even though it failed to report the evaluation to HR. (ECF No. 106 at 7.) Plaintiff has provided no basis for this conclusory allegation.
Plaintiff is an African-American who was terminated/laid off, thus satisfying the first and third elements for prima facie race discrimination. Defendant does not assert that plaintiff failed to meet the second prong — whether plaintiff was qualified for his position. Defendant does argue, however, that plaintiff cannot meet the fourth prong of the test because there is no evidence that his layoff was based on his race. Therefore, defendant argues, plaintiff has not met his initial burden. Defendant also contends that because it offers evidence justifying plaintiff's layoff, the burden shifts back to plaintiff to show pretext, and plaintiff has failed to meet that burden.
Despite plaintiff's pro se status and the minimal burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination,
3.
Even assuming plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie discrimination claim, defendant has provided legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its layoff decision which resulted in plaintiff's termination. The County began suffering budget cuts in 2008, which continued through 2011, resulting in the layoff of 1,000 positions during this time period. (ECF No. 53, ¶ 13.) In particular, EEDD, the department where plaintiff worked, lost funds in 2011, which resulted in the layoff of six positions in March, 2011, and thirteen positions in May, 2011. Six of those positions in the May, 2011 layoff were job developer positions which included plaintiff's position. (ECF No. 53, ¶ 13; ECF No. 54, 16.)
The policy in place at the time which guided the 2011 layoffs was based on seniority only. (ECF No. 53-15.) Mr. Solis' declaration states that when he deleted six job developer positions for the 2011-2012 fiscal year, he did not know which individuals would be affected. (ECF No. 54, ¶ 17.) Because seniority is based on total time with the County and not time with the individual department, Solis states he did not know, and did not try to guess who would be impacted by this decision, and in particular he did not know plaintiff would be laid off when he made his decision. (
Plaintiff provides numerous arguments in his attempts to show pretext; however, none of them have merit as they could never have been the cause of the layoffs, which were based solely on budget and seniority— nothing else.
Plaintiff first disputes, with immaterial evidence, that defendant suffered a reduction in funding, and contends that its adverse action in laying him off was discriminatory or a pretext. Since five other job developers were laid off at the same time as plaintiff, the fact that plaintiff may have been the only African-American laid off reduces the materiality of this fact to inconsequential status.
In regard to the decreased funding numbers, plaintiff argues that in fact expenditures in 2011-2012 fiscal year were the same as expenditures in the previous fiscal year, 2010-2011. (ECF Nos. 66 at 19, 106 at 8.) Plaintiff has attached budget numbers for the fiscal years 2007-2008 to 2013-2014. (ECF No. 66 at 82-86.) The years most pertinent to plaintiff's layoff are 2010 to 2011. Total actual expenditures in fiscal year 2010-2011 were $19,266,995. (
The other set of figures that plaintiff uses to make his point, regarding services and supplies, also indicate a decrease in funding rather than an increase. In fiscal year 2009-10, actual services and supplies were $13.5 million. (
Plaintiff next disputes Mr. Solis' motive in the layoff by arguing that this EEDD director chose a certain number of positions to be eliminated in order to ensure that plaintiff would be among that number, and that Solis also knew how much seniority each employee had to ensure that plaintiff would certainly be laid off. He has submitted no evidence to support this assertion. The EEOC fact finding notes submitted by plaintiff actually contradict his position, however. Mr. Solis stated at that conference:
(ECF No. 66 at 27.) (Emphasis added). These statements are consistent with Mr. Solis' declaration.
Since it has already been established that the layoffs were determined by seniority only, by use of an objective mechanism for establishing the objective fact of seniority, it was not possible for the seniority determinations to be affected by discrimination.
Plaintiff contends that he had more seniority than employees in other job classifications, such as case managers and business and retention specialists, but those non-African-American employees were not laid off. (ECF No. 66 at 3, 16.) This argument also fails because the only employees similarly situated to plaintiff at the time of his layoff were job developers. (ECF No. 54, ¶ 16.) Moreover, plaintiff's own evidence, the EEOC fact finding testimony, indicates that five Hispanics in plaintiff's classification were laid off at the time plaintiff was laid off.
Also important is the fact that plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that his position was filled shortly after his layoff by anyone, let alone a non-African-American.
Nor is plaintiff's further assertion that the duties of six laid off job developers were absorbed by the remaining three job developers supported by any evidence, while defendant has provided evidence that these six positions were completely eliminated. (ECF No. 54, ¶ 16.)
Plaintiff's conclusory statement that within days and weeks after the layoffs, defendant promoted several individuals and returned several others to the Department, is unsupported. (ECF No. 106 at 8.) As defendant points out, although plaintiff has provided interrogatory responses indicating that eleven employees returned to EEDD after the July, 2011 layoff, the seniority of these employees in relation to plaintiff's seniority is unknown. (ECF No. 66 at 36.)
The County's re-employment policy is based on the employee's seniority in the particular class from which he or she was laid off. (Goodman Supp. Dec.; ECF No. 110-3, ¶ 3.) Furthermore, the employees re-employed pursuant to the response to interrogatory number 9 received job titles on their return for which plaintiff may not have been qualified, and he has not shown otherwise. Plaintiff was employed as an Employment Services Specialist II (SUF ¶ 1), and none of the jobs to which other employees returned were for this position or Specialist I.
Furthermore, these interrogatories cannot be considered to determine who was laid off in July, 2011, at the same time as plaintiff, because they only include employees who returned, not all employees who were laid off. (ECF No. 66 at 33-38.)
Based on defendant's re-employment policy which is based strictly on seniority, and Ms. Goodman's declaration that the policy was followed in this case, plaintiff is unable to show pretext in this regard.
Plaintiff states that he can produce a witness, Peter Brown, an "EEO Analyst I" who performed the preliminary investigation, to testify regarding his discovery in 2008 that "Defendant has no desire to protect African-Americans from prejudice and bigotry expressed by Defendant employees like Castellanos and more importantly Defendant is extremely prejudiced against African-Americans who make charges of discrimination summarily terminating any and all African-Americans who make and/or allege discrimination." (ECF No. 66 at 15.) Plaintiff has produced no evidence whatsoever of what this witness might say, other than plaintiff's own conclusion. This bald hearsay allegation does not even meet the minimum standards of
Finally, plaintiff contends that he was not promoted on two occasions as a result of his unsatisfactory evaluation in 2009, and that these actions are evidence of pretext for his layoff. (ECF No. 106 at 6.) The only hint he provides is his allegation that when Dan Maloney retired, plaintiff was not promoted to that position. (ECF No. 66 at 7-8.) In regard to this event, defendant has provided evidence that when Mr. Maloney retired, Mr. Solis did not fill this position but divided the job duties among other employees, including Teresa Parker, who received no pay increase for these added duties. (SUF ¶¶ 26-27.) The remaining duties were split among three other employees, who also did not receive additional compensation. (
Plaintiff's argument that Human Resources' decision was discriminatory in finding him unqualified to sit for a promotional exam for EEDD Division Manager based on his limited prior supervisory experience, is not supported by any evidence, and is rejected as irrelevant to the layoff, for the reasons repeated above. (ECF No. 66 at 14.)
Plaintiff alleges that other African-American employees were discriminated against when they were not promoted. He cites Vernell Hill as an example of a qualified and more experienced African-American who was not selected for a position. (ECF No. 66 at 12.) He also points to Allet Williams as the only African-American promoted by Mr. Solis in the last ten years. (
Defendant has met its burden by articulating legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment actions which were not a pretext. Plaintiff has failed to produce any material facts to dispute the reason for his layoff, and the criteria used in determining who was laid off. He has not demonstrated a material issue of fact that his race was the "motivating factor" for the layoff.
Defendant also moves for summary judgment as to plaintiff's claims of retaliation under Title VII. "Title VII prohibits, among other things, retaliation against an employee for making a charge or otherwise participating in a Title VII proceeding."
An adverse employment action is "any adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in protected activity."
"Title VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action."
In regard to the retaliation claim, defendant asserts that plaintiff cannot demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact addressed to the causal link between plaintiff's protected activities and his layoff.
Causation can be inferred by a temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action, that the action follows "close on the heels" of the complaint.
The undisputed facts are that plaintiff engaged in protected activity in 2004 when he filed a Civil Service Rule 20 complaint and an EEO claim, in 2007 when he filed a Civil Service Rule 20 complaint, on December 18, 2009 when he filed a grievance with the union, and in February, 2010, when he filed an EEO claim.
Even if plaintiff could establish a prima facie case, the parties' arguments in connection with the second and third prongs of the burden shifting test as fleshed out above in regard to plaintiff's race discrimination claim are relied on here, and result in the same conclusion. The undersigned already found that defendant met its burden to provide legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the layoff, and that plaintiff failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact in regard to pretext. Plaintiff has failed to show that defendant's desire to retaliate was the "but-for cause" of his termination. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claim.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: defendant's March 24, 2014 motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 51), be GRANTED, and judgment be entered in favor of defendant.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order.