Sanders v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA4/2 (2025) · DecisionDepot
Sanders v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Jan 7, 2025 No. E082238Unpublished
Filed 1/7/25 Sanders v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
HOLLY SANDERS,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E082238
v. (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2105886)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF OPINION CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Irma Poole Asberry,
Judge. Reversed with directions.
McCune Law Group, Joseph L. Richardson, Steven A. Haskins and Andrew W.
Van Ligten for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General,
Alice Quinton and Melissa A. Lewis, Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Plaintiff and appellant Holly Sanders (Employee) sued her employer, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department), alleging racial
discrimination and harassment. The trial court granted the Department’s motion for
summary judgment. Employee contends the trial court erred. We reverse with
Employee worked for the Department as a correctional officer. Employee began
working for the Department in 2001 and worked at the California Institution for Men in
Chino. In November 2018, Employee “applied for and obtained a transfer to the
Rainbow Fire Camp (Rainbow Camp).” Jonathan Rodriguez (Supervisor) supervised
Employee at Rainbow Camp.
Employee is African-American. “[O]n at least one occasion, [Supervisor] said, ‘I
don’t understand your people.’ ” “[Supervisor’s] use of derogatory comments about
‘your people’ was ‘quite frequent’ and occurred on multiple occasions.”
Supervisor alleged Employee engaged in misconduct at work. Supervisor
reported his allegations to the warden for the purpose of having an investigation
conducted into Employee’s alleged misconduct. In January 2021, “Warden Mona
Houston requested that the Office of Internal Affairs conduct an investigation into [the]
allegations of misconduct against [Employee].” Due to the investigation, Employee
was transferred from working in the camp to working at the California Institution for
1 If the facts are familiar, it is because this court previously addressed this case in Rodriguez v. Superior Court (Feb. 22, 2024, E082288) [nonpub. opn.].
2
Women. Also during the investigation, Employee applied for a promotion to sergeant at
other prisons operated by the Department. Employee was denied the promotion due to
the pending investigation.
The investigation, which began in January 2021, concluded in November 2021.
“None of the allegations against [Employee] were sustained . . . . At the conclusion of
the investigation, [Employee] transferred back to [a camp assignment].”
DISCUSSION
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we independently evaluate the
record, liberally construing the evidence supporting the party opposing the motion, and
resolving any doubts in his or her favor. [Citation.] As the moving party, [the
Department] must show that [Employee] has not established, and reasonably cannot be
expected to establish, one or more elements of the cause of action in question.”
By contrast, in a summary judgment motion, “ ‘ “[T]he employer, as the moving
party, has the initial burden to present admissible evidence showing either that one or
more elements of plaintiff’s prima facie case is lacking or that the adverse employment
action was based upon legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors.” ’ [Citation.] ‘If the
employer meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the employee to “demonstrate a
triable issue by producing substantial evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were
untrue or pretextual, or that the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, such that
a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the employer engaged in intentional
discrimination or other unlawful action.” ’ ” (Galvan v. Dameron Hospital Assn.,
supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at pp. 558-559.)
7
In Employer’s separate statement of undisputed facts, it set forth the following
fact: “[Employee] stated that, on at least one occasion, [Supervisor] said, ‘I don’t
understand your people.’ [Employee] could not recall how many times [Supervisor]
used a phrase like ‘your people’ when speaking with [Employee].” One could view the
phrase “your people” as racist, and “I don’t understand your people” as demeaning.
Therefore, in Employer’s statement of undisputed facts, there is a fact indicating
Supervisor may have harbored racial animosity. As a result, the Department has not
conclusively demonstrated, for purposes of summary judgment, that the investigation
was requested for legitimate reasons.
In sum, there are triable issues of fact supporting the elements of Employee’s
discrimination cause of action. The trial court erred by concluding otherwise.
C. REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION
The Department moved only for summary judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (a)(1) [“the action has no merit”]); it did not seek, in the alternative, summary
adjudication (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1) [“A party may move for summary
adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action”]). There are triable
issues of fact on the first cause of action, which means the Department has failed to
demonstrate that there is no merit to the case. Therefore, the motion for summary
judgment fails. We need not address the remaining causes of action. (Hawkins v.
Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 949 [“[B]ecause [defendant] did not move in the
alternative for summary adjudication of specified issues, we will not address whether
[defendant] may have prevailed on some issues in this case.”].)
8
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The trial court is directed to vacate its order granting
the motion for summary judgment and enter a new order denying the motion. Appellant
is awarded her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the plaintiff established triable issues of fact regarding her racial discrimination claim, specifically under the cat's-paw theory of liability.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the plaintiff's racial discrimination claim.
Whether the supervisor's alleged use of the phrase 'your people' and the subsequent investigation created a triable issue of fact regarding discriminatory motive.
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“In sum, there are triable issues of fact supporting the elements of Employee’s discrimination cause of action. The trial court erred by concluding otherwise.”
“one could conclude that Supervisor requested Employee be investigated due to racial bias and in order to cause adverse actions for her career, such as being denied promotions.”