×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
California Fair Employment and Housing Act Claim Analyzed
California's First District Court of Appeals has reversed a finding of workplace retaliation and expanded upon the elements of a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
This action was initiated by Dr. Margie McRae, who alleged discrimination and retaliation under FEHA by her employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDOC) and four prison employees. A jury returned a verdict against Dr. McRae on her discrimination claim but awarded her $75,000 on her claim of retaliation. CDOC appealed the judgment and McRae appealed the award of attorney's fees on the claim she did not prevail upon.
In California, an employee seeking recovery on a theory of unlawful discrimination or retaliation must demonstrate that he or she has been subjected to an adverse employment action that materially affects the terms, conditions or privileges of employment, rather than simply that the employee has been subjected to an adverse action or treatment that reasonably would deter an employee from engaging in the protected activity. The First District emphasized that the employee must prove a "substantial adverse job effect" to prevail.
A plaintiff can satisfy his or her initial burden under the test by producing evidence of nothing more than the employer's knowledge that the employee engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment decision.
Such evidence, however, only satisfies the plaintiff's initial burden. "Once an employee establishes a prima facie case, the employer is required to offer a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer produces a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the presumption of retaliation 'drops out of the picture,' and the burden shifts back to the employee to prove intentional retaliation."
The plaintiff's burden is to prove, by competent evidence, that the employer's proffered justification is mere pretext; i.e., that the presumptively valid reason for the employer's action was in fact a cover up. In responding to the employer's showing of a legitimate reason for the complained-of action, the plaintiff cannot "simply show the employer's decision wrong, mistaken, or unwise." Rather, the employee "must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradiction, in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence, and hence infer that the employer did not act for the non-discriminatory reasons."
The First District found the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. McRae showed a continuing course of conduct that was in fact a series of events, each bearing little relationship to the others, and at least some of which clearly were not the result of unlawful retaliation. Moreover, CDOC stated valid, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and McRae did not meet her burden of showing that CDOC's asserted reasons were pretextual.
The jury's verdict was reversed and McRae may be subject to further cost assessments upon remand. See: McRae v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 142 Cal.App.4th 377, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 313 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2006), review denied.
This action was initiated by Dr. Margie McRae, who alleged discrimination and retaliation under FEHA by her employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDOC) and four prison employees. A jury returned a verdict against Dr. McRae on her discrimination claim but awarded her $75,000 on her claim of retaliation. CDOC appealed the judgment and McRae appealed the award of attorney's fees on the claim she did not prevail upon.
In California, an employee seeking recovery on a theory of unlawful discrimination or retaliation must demonstrate that he or she has been subjected to an adverse employment action that materially affects the terms, conditions or privileges of employment, rather than simply that the employee has been subjected to an adverse action or treatment that reasonably would deter an employee from engaging in the protected activity. The First District emphasized that the employee must prove a "substantial adverse job effect" to prevail.
A plaintiff can satisfy his or her initial burden under the test by producing evidence of nothing more than the employer's knowledge that the employee engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment decision.
Such evidence, however, only satisfies the plaintiff's initial burden. "Once an employee establishes a prima facie case, the employer is required to offer a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer produces a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the presumption of retaliation 'drops out of the picture,' and the burden shifts back to the employee to prove intentional retaliation."
The plaintiff's burden is to prove, by competent evidence, that the employer's proffered justification is mere pretext; i.e., that the presumptively valid reason for the employer's action was in fact a cover up. In responding to the employer's showing of a legitimate reason for the complained-of action, the plaintiff cannot "simply show the employer's decision wrong, mistaken, or unwise." Rather, the employee "must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradiction, in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could rationally find them unworthy of credence, and hence infer that the employer did not act for the non-discriminatory reasons."
The First District found the jury's verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. McRae showed a continuing course of conduct that was in fact a series of events, each bearing little relationship to the others, and at least some of which clearly were not the result of unlawful retaliation. Moreover, CDOC stated valid, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and McRae did not meet her burden of showing that CDOC's asserted reasons were pretextual.
The jury's verdict was reversed and McRae may be subject to further cost assessments upon remand. See: McRae v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 142 Cal.App.4th 377, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 313 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2006), review denied.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
McRae v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 142 Cal.App.4th 377, (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2006) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Jury Verdict |
| Damages | 75,000.00 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |