Mack v. City of Guadalupe CA2/6

Filed 10/13/25 Mack v. City of Guadalupe CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

RYAN MACK, 2d Civ. No. B342205 (Super. Ct. No. 23CV01214) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

CITY OF GUADALUPE, ET AL.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Ryan Mack appeals after the trial court granted summary adjudication and summary judgment following a motion by respondents City of Guadalupe, Emiko Gerber, and Michael Cash. Appellant, a former Fire Captain, had asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Appellant contends the trial court erred and that he established a genuine issue of material fact as to both claims. We will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was a Fire Captain with the City of Guadalupe (the City) from 2017 through June 5, 2023. He was a vocal union advocate who “engaged in numerous protected activities including protected speech, all related to the safety and working conditions of firefighters with the City.” “At numerous meetings and in public gatherings, [appellant] voiced his opinion on union matters related to the efficiency, proper running and competency of the City and its Fire Department.” According to appellant, respondents perceived him to be a zealous union advocate and one of the primary causes of the issues the union had exposed. Appellant has alleged “he was targeted for being a part of MOU negotiations, for standing up to the City to pay out of pocket for an appeal process, and for opposing ‘fake disciplines.’” On March 8, 2022, in accordance with department practice, appellant texted his employer that he was calling in sick that day. Chief Michael Cash, appellant’s supervisor, called him about six times that day. Appellant called back and spoke with Chief Cash for about two minutes. Chief Cash stated that he was concerned about appellant’s mental welfare and that he believed appellant was under a lot of stress due to work. Appellant said, “I do not feel 100 percent, and I don’t feel capable of doing the job right now.” According to appellant, Chief Cash wanted a reason why he was sick and asked if it was stress. Appellant indicated “stress is a part of the job. Of course there’s stress involved.” But appellant stated stress was “not why I’m calling in sick.” On March 10, Emiko Gerber (the City’s Human Resources Manager) contacted appellant and indicated he was being ordered to complete physical and psychological evaluations. A