Webb v. Cox Communications California CA4/1 (2016) · DecisionDepot
Webb v. Cox Communications California CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Jan 21, 2016 No. D067243Unpublished
Filed 1/21/16 Webb v. Cox Communications California CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CATANA WEBB, D067243
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00083770- CU-WT-CTL) COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Katherine A. Bacal, Judge. Affirmed.
Eisenberg & Associates, Michael B. Eisenberg and Joseph S. Socher for Plaintiff
and Appellants.
Ferris & Britton, Michael R. Weinstein and W. Lee Biddle for Defendants and
Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Catana Webb appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Cox Communications
California, LLC (Cox) and Julisan Jones on Webb's second amended complaint
(complaint), which alleged causes of action for age discrimination, age harassment, and
retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). Webb contends we must reverse the judgment because
there are triable issues of material fact as to whether Cox discharged her, Jones harassed
off Webb, then age 54, and another employee, then age 23. Cox planned to lay off a third
employee, then age 33, who also primarily handled Tier 1 calls. However, Cox opted to
temporarily retain the employee because the employee was bilingual and had experience
handling complex disconnect calls. Of the remaining employees in Webb's work group,
three had no responsibility for handling Tier 1 calls and four others handled Tier 1 calls
as needed, but primarily handled more complex calls, referred to by the parties as Tier 2
or 3 calls. Nonetheless, within 10 months of Webb's discharge, Cox had laid off these
employees as well.
During the last four years of Webb's employment, Jones supervised her. Jones
regarded Webb as a good employee and Webb admitted Jones never gave her an unfair
performance review or otherwise unfairly criticized her performance. In fact, while
under Jones's supervision, Webb consistently received year-end merit pay increases based
on Jones's appraisal of Webb's work performance. In addition, after Webb learned Cox
was going to lay her off, Jones assisted Webb in identifying other position openings
within Cox to which Webb could apply.
Although Webb acknowledged she was happy working for Jones, Webb
nonetheless claimed Jones harassed her with ageist remarks. Webb identified five such
remarks. First, about a year after Jones began supervising Webb, Jones remarked "[a]ge
before beauty, my dear" as both she and Webb were entering an elevator. Second, at
least a year before Webb's discharge, at a staff birthday party for Webb and another
employee, Jones observed that Webb was now the oldest member of Jones's team and
3
another employee was now the youngest member. Third, sometime within a year or two
before Webb's discharge, while she and Jones reviewed a recorded customer call in which
Webb did not remember the answer to a customer's question and had to reference some
paperwork, Jones remarked to Webb, "Well, your Alzheimer's must be kicking in."
Fourth, sometime within a year of her discharge, as Webb was returning to work from a
break, Jones saw Webb and remarked, "Oh, girl. You're moving slow." Finally, about
six to eight months before Webb's discharge, Jones commented that Webb needed to
recolor her hair because her gray roots were showing. Jones denied making these
remarks.
Webb further claims Jones tolerated ageist remarks from other employees.
Specifically, when one employee complained in front of Jones and Webb that another
employee was "senile" and "needed to retire," Jones did not reprimand him. Instead,
Jones laughed and said, "You shouldn't say that." Similarly, when the same offending
employee described yet another employee as "senile," Jones jokingly told him to "stop
it." The offending employee denied making these remarks.
After learning of her discharge, Webb submitted resumes for over 50 positions
within Cox. For various reasons, she was not hired for any of the positions. In several
instances, Cox cancelled the position openings and did not hire anyone for them. In a
few instances, Webb submitted her resume after Cox had identified an initial candidate
pool from earlier submissions. In four instances, the position openings required
relocation to another state, which Webb was unwilling to do. Of the remaining position
4
openings, either Webb did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position or Cox
hired others it deemed better qualified than Webb.1
Approximately six months after the effective date of her discharge, Webb filed a
complaint with the DFEH alleging Cox discharged her and Jones harassed her because of
her age. Eighteen months later, Webb filed a second DFEH complaint alleging Cox
failed to rehire her because of her age and because she filed the first DFEH complaint.
The recruiters within Cox who reviewed and rejected Webb's applications for rehire
denied knowing her age or that she had filed a DFEH complaint.
The instant action alleges causes of action against Cox for age discrimination and
retaliation and a cause of action against both Cox and Jones for age harassment. Cox and
Jones moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of Webb's
causes of action. As to Webb's age discrimination cause of action, Cox argued Webb
could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination nor could she establish Cox's
business reasons for discharging her were pretextual. As to Webb's age harassment cause
of action, Cox and Jones argued Webb could not establish Jones's alleged ageist remarks
were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Webb's employment and
create an abusive working environment. As to Webb's retaliation cause of action, Cox
argued Webb could not establish a causal connection between the filing of her first DFEH
1 Webb's last three resume submittals falsely stated she had been employed with Cox as a senior marketing analyst from 1996 to 2012. Webb denies she was trying to mislead Cox about her former job title. Rather, she claims she was simply stating she had the experience and qualifications for a marketing analyst position. The record does not show Cox based any of its decisions not to rehire Webb on resume inaccuracies. 5
complaint and her failure to obtain any of the positions within Cox for which she applied.
The trial court largely agreed with Cox's and Jones's arguments and granted their motion.
DISCUSSION
"On appeal after a motion for summary judgment has been granted, we review the
record de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposition
papers except that to which objections have been made and sustained. [Citation.] Under
California's traditional rules, we determine with respect to each cause of action whether
the defendant seeking summary judgment has conclusively negated a necessary element
of the plaintiff's case, or has demonstrated that under no hypothesis is there a material
issue of fact that requires the process of trial, such that the defendant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334
(Guz).)
I
Age Discrimination Cause of Action
A
FEHA generally prohibits an employer from refusing to hire or from discharging a
person because of the person's age. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) "In cases alleging
employment discrimination, we analyze the trial court's decision on a motion for
summary judgment using a three-step process that is based on the burden-shifting test
that was established by the United States Supreme Court for trials of employment
discrimination claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792
[McDonnell Douglas]." (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830,
6
860 (Serri).) "[U]nder the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff
may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a 'prima facie case,' the
components of which vary depending upon the nature of the claim, but typically require
evidence that ' "(1) [the plaintiff] was a member of a protected class, (2) [the plaintiff]
was qualified for the position he [or she] sought or was performing competently in the
position ... held, (3) [the plaintiff] suffered an adverse employment action, such as
termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance
[that] suggests discriminatory motive." ' [Citation.] 'A satisfactory showing to this effect
gives rise to a presumption of discrimination which, if unanswered by the employer, is
mandatory—it requires judgment for the plaintiff.' [Citations.] However, under the
second step of the test, 'the employer may dispel the presumption merely by articulating a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action. [Citation.] At that point
the presumption disappears.' [Citation.] Under the third step of the test, the 'plaintiff
must ... have the opportunity to attack the employer's proffered reasons as pretexts for
discrimination, or to offer any other evidence of discriminatory motive.' " (Serri, supra,
at pp. 860-861.)
This framework is modified in the summary judgment context: " 'the 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.' " (Serri,
supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 861.) "In this context, 'legitimate' reasons 'are reasons that
are facially unrelated to prohibited bias, and which, if true, would thus preclude a finding
7
of discrimination.' " (Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 666,
673 (Reeves).) "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.' " (Serri, at
p. 861.)
An employee " ' "may establish pretext 'either directly by persuading the court that
a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that
the employer's proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.' " ' " (Batarse v. Service
is not sufficient for an employee to make a bare prima facie showing or to simply deny
the credibility of the employer's witnesses or to speculate as to discriminatory motive.
[Citations.] Rather it is incumbent upon the employee to produce 'substantial responsive
evidence' demonstrating the existence of a material triable controversy as to pretext or
discriminatory animus on the part of the employer." (Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at
p. 862.) "[S]ummary judgment for the employer may thus be appropriate where, given
the strength of the employer's showing of innocent reasons, any countervailing
circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive, even if it may technically constitute a
prima facie case, is too weak to raise a rational inference that discrimination occurred."
(Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 362; Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57
Cal.App.4th 997, 1004-1005 (Hersant).)
8
B
1
Webb bases her age discrimination cause of action on both her discharge and on
Cox's subsequent failure to rehire her. Among the grounds for summary judgment, Cox
argued it provided substantial evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions and Webb could not meet her countervailing burden of providing substantial
evidence Cox's reasons were a pretext for intentional discrimination. (Batarse, supra,
209 Cal.App.4th at p. 834; Morgan v. Regents of University of California (2000) 88
Cal.App.4th 52, 68 (Morgan).)
To support its arguments as to Webb's discharge, Cox provided evidence it
discharged her because it transferred at least 90 percent of her work to a national call
center outside the state and no longer needed her services. To support its arguments as to
its failure to rehire her, Cox provided evidence of the various reasons she was either not
considered for or not selected for the positions to which she applied, principally her lack
of minimum qualifications or the existence of candidates Cox deemed better qualified.
Cox's reasons for discharging Webb and failing to rehire her, if true, are facially unrelated
to her age and preclude a finding of discrimination. (Reeves, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at
p. 673; Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co. (9th Cir. 2000) 232 F.3d 1271, 1282.)2
Accordingly, Cox was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law unless Webb
2 "While state and federal legislation concerning age discrimination differs in some respects, their objectives are identical, and courts of this state have looked to federal law to aid in the interpretation of analogous provisions of California statutes." (Hersant, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 1002, fn. 1.) 9
presented substantial evidence Cox's true reasons were discriminatory. (Coleman v.
Quaker Oats Co., supra, at p. 1282.)
2
a
As to her discharge, Webb does not dispute her work principally involved
answering Tier 1 calls. She also does not dispute Cox transferred her work outside of
California and the work no longer existed after her discharge. Instead, she presented
evidence she had experience performing at least some of the work temporarily remaining
in the San Diego office after Cox transferred her work. Essentially, Webb asserts Cox
could have and should have transferred another employee's work to her and discharged
the other employee instead of her. However, "[w]hen an employer modifies its
workforce for business reasons, it has no obligation to transfer an employee to another
position within the company." (Gibbs v. Consolidated Services (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th
794, 800; accord, Rose v. Wells Fargo & Co. (9th Cir. 1990) 902 F.2d 1417, 1422.)
Further, where, as here, Webb's temporarily retained coworkers performed distinct duties
for which they were qualified, it is not reasonable to conclude from their retention that
age was a significant factor in the decision to temporarily retain them rather than Webb.
(See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 369-370.)
b
Webb also provided evidence Jones, who recommended Webb's discharge, had
both made and tolerated ageist remarks as recently as six months before Webb's
discharge. However, such stray remarks, by themselves, are not sufficient to create a
10
triable issue of age discrimination. (Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 541-
542.) At best, these remarks raise only a weak suspicion discrimination was the basis for
Webb's discharge. While this weak suspicion may be sufficient to establish a prima facie
case of discrimination, it does not amount to substantial evidence of discrimination
necessary to defeat a summary judgment motion. (See Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 867-868.) Accordingly, we conclude Webb failed to meet her burden of producing
substantial evidence Cox's stated reasons for discharging her were pretextual or that Cox
acted with discriminatory animus such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude Cox
engaged in intentional discrimination. (See id. at p. 868.)
3
a
As to Cox's failure to rehire Webb, we preliminarily note Webb did not exhaust
her administrative remedies as to this aspect of her discrimination claim or as to her
related retaliation claim (see Discussion, part III, post) until she submitted her second
DFEH complaint on February 24, 2014. (Morgan, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 63 [an
employee may not file a civil action alleging a FEHA violation until the employee first
exhausts her administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the DFEH and obtaining
a right to sue notice].) The applicable limitations period for FEHA claims is one year
from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice occurred. (Gov. Code, § 12960,
subd. (d); Morgan, supra, at p. 63.) Webb's second DFEH complaint states the last act of
discrimination and retaliation occurred on or before July 9, 2013. Thus, Webb's claims
for discriminatory and retaliatory failure to rehire her are limited to Cox's failure to rehire
11
her for positions to which she applied between February 24, 2013, and July 9, 2013. (See
Morgan, at p. 63.)
Contrary to Webb's assertion, the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to
extend the limitations period for her failure to rehire claims. "A continuing violation
may be established by demonstrating 'a company[-]wide policy or practice' or 'a series of
related acts against a single individual." (Morgan, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 64.) The
first type of continuing violation does not apply as Webb has not alleged Cox has a
company-wide policy of discrimination. (Id. at p. 65.) For the second type of continuing
violation to apply, Webb must establish: (1) Cox's various decisions not to rehire her
were closely related; and (2) a reasonable person exercising reasonable diligence would
not have known Cox was unlawfully discriminating or retaliating at the time it made any
of the more than 50 earlier decisions not to rehire her. (Ibid.) Assuming, without
deciding, Webb could establish the first requirement, there is no evidence she could
establish the second requirement. Rather, a decision not to rehire an employee generally
has " ' "the degree of permanence which should trigger an employee's awareness of and
duty to assert [his] or her rights." ' " (Id. at p. 66.)
b
With the applicable limitations period in mind, we consider Webb's substantive
arguments. She contends Cox's stated reasons for failing to rehire her were pretextual
because: (1) her high school graduation date and her years of work experience, which
were listed on her resume, indicated she was an older worker; (2) the persons selected for
at least some of the positions she sought were either no more qualified or less qualified
12
than she; and (3) her younger coworkers had no difficulty finding other positions within
Cox after their layoffs. The first and third points, while relevant to Webb's prima facie
case, do not aid her burden of showing pretext. (Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 862
[an employee does not meet her burden of showing a triable issue of pretext by making a
bare prima facie showing, or simply denying the credibility of the employer's witnesses,
or speculating as to the employer's discriminatory motive]; see Reeves, supra, 186
Cal.App.4th at pp. 673-674 [an employee does not meet her burden of showing pretext by
simply showing the employer's decision was wrong or mistaken; the factual dispute is
whether the employer's motivation for its decision was discriminatory animus, not
whether the employer's decision was wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent].)
The second point aids Webb's burden of showing pretext only if supported by
evidence Webb's qualifications were vastly superior to the qualifications of the persons
Cox opted to employ instead of her. (Reeves, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 675.) Webb
only attempted to make this showing as to three positions: Media Sales Service
Specialist I, Account Services Representative, and Retail Solutions Specialist. We need
not address Webb's arguments regarding the first two positions as the record shows the
hiring decisions for these positions were made before February 24, 2013, and are,
consequently, outside the applicable limitations period.
As to the Retail Solutions Specialist position, the record shows Webb never
completed the application process for this position. In addition, while the people hired
for this position may have had less general work experience and less telecommunications
experience than Webb, they all had recent customer-facing experience in a retail
13
environment, which Webb did not have. We cannot reasonably infer from this record
Webb's qualifications were "vastly superior" to those hired, and Webb's subjective views
to the contrary are insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact. (Horn v. Cushman
personal judgments of his or her competence alone do not raise a genuine issue of
material fact"].) We, therefore, conclude Webb failed to meet her burden of producing
substantial evidence Cox's stated reasons for failing to hire her were pretextual or that
Cox acted with discriminatory animus. (See Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 868.)
II
Age Harassment
In addition to prohibiting age-related discrimination, FEHA prohibits age-related
harassment. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j).) To prevail on a harassment claim, a
plaintiff must produce evidence showing she was subjected to offensive comments or
other abusive conduct based on a protected characteristic and the comments or conduct
was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. (Serri,
supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 871.) " 'Whether the conduct of the alleged harassers was
sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment
depends on the totality of the circumstances. " 'These may include the frequency of the
discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or
a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's
work performance.' " [Citations.] " 'Common sense, and an appropriate sensibility to
social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or
14
roughhousing ... and conduct [that] a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would
find severely hostile or abusive.' " [Citations.] As in sex-based harassment claims, "[t]he
plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct would have interfered with a reasonable
employee's [fn. omitted] work performance and would have seriously affected the
psychological well-being of a reasonable employee and that [he or she] was actually
offended." ' " (Id. at p. 870.)
Here, with respect to the severity of the harassment, the alleged ageist remarks
attributed to and tolerated by Jones are not "the type of statements that 'would have
interfered with a reasonable employee's ... work performance and would have seriously
affected the psychological well-being of a reasonable employee.' " (Serri, supra, 226
Cal.App.4th at p. 871.) Indeed, the record shows Webb was a good employee, received
favorable performance reviews, and was happy working at Cox. While the alleged
remarks might be in poor taste, "FEHA is not a general civility code. [Citations.]
'Simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will
not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms or conditions of employment.' " (Juell
v. Forest Pharms., Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2006) 456 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1157, citing Faragher v.
City of Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775, 788 [118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662].)
"With respect to the pervasiveness of harassment, courts have held an employee
generally cannot recover for harassment that is occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial;
rather, the employee must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine,
or a generalized nature. [Citations.] That is, when the harassing conduct is not severe in
the extreme, more than a few isolated incidents must have occurred to prove a claim
15
based on working conditions." (Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006)
38 Cal.4th 264, 283-284.) Under this standard, the seven or eight alleged ageist remarks
made by or tolerated by Jones over the course of three to four years are not sufficiently
pervasive to support a claim for harassment. (See Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television
Productions, supra, at pp. 283-284; Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 871; see also
Candelore v. Clark County Sanitation Dist. (9th Cir. 1992) 975 F.2d 588, 590 [sporadic
incidents of inappropriate behavior do not create a hostile or abusive working
environment].) Consequently, we conclude Webb has not established there is a triable
issue of material fact as to her age harassment cause of action.
III
Retaliation Claim
FEHA also prohibits an employer from retaliating against a person because the
person has filed a DFEH complaint. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h).) " ' "To establish a
prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected
activity, that she was thereafter subjected to adverse employment action by her employer,
and there was a causal link between the two." ' [Citations.] 'The retaliatory motive is
"proved by showing that plaintiff engaged in protected activities, that his employer was
aware of the protected activities, and that the adverse action followed within a relatively
short time thereafter." [Citation.] "The causal link may be established by an inference
derived from circumstantial evidence, 'such as the employer's knowledge that the
[employee] engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the
protected action and allegedly retaliatory employment decision.' " [Citation.]' [Citation.]
16
'Essential to a causal link is evidence that the employer was aware that the plaintiff had
engaged in the protected activity.' " (Morgan, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at pp. 69-70.)
In this case, Cox presented affirmative evidence showing none of the recruiters
who processed Webb's applications for rehire had any knowledge of Webb's DFEH
complaint. Webb presented no contradictory evidence. In the absence of evidence the
recruiters were aware of Webb's DFEH complaint, she cannot establish the causal link
necessary to raise a triable issue of material fact as to her retaliation claim.3 (Morgan,
supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 74.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
AARON, J.
3 Given our conclusion Webb has not established a triable issue of material fact as to any of her causes of action, we need not decide whether Webb could establish a triable issue of material fact as to her punitive damages claim. 17
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish triable issues of material fact regarding her claims of age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under FEHA. The employer provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the discharge and failure to rehire, and the alleged ageist remarks were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute harassment.
Issues
Whether the employer's discharge and failure to rehire the plaintiff constituted age discrimination in violation of FEHA.
Whether the supervisor's alleged ageist remarks created a hostile work environment amounting to age harassment.
Whether the employer's failure to rehire the plaintiff was in retaliation for filing a DFEH complaint.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the seven or eight alleged ageist remarks made by or tolerated by Jones over the course of three to four years are not sufficiently pervasive to support a claim for harassment.”
“In the absence of evidence the recruiters were aware of Webb's DFEH complaint, she cannot establish the causal link necessary to raise a triable issue of material fact as to her retaliation claim.”