Metoyer v. Chassman, 04-56179.

Citation504 F.3d 919
Decision Date26 September 2007
Docket NumberNo. 04-56179.,04-56179.
PartiesPatricia Heisser METOYER, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. Leonard CHASSMAN, an individual; John McGuire, an individual, Defendants-Appellees, Screen Actors Guild, Inc., a corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Marco Simons and Lauren Teukolsky, Hadsell & Stormer, Inc., Pasadena, CA, for the appellant.

Anne Richardson, Hadsell & Stormer, Inc., Pasadena, CA, for the appellant.

Rick Hicks, Hicks & Hicks, Beverly Hills, CA, for the appellant.

Eugenia Hicks, Hicks & Hicks, Beverly Hills, CA, for the appellant.

Catherine B. Hagen, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for the appellees.

Eric J. Amdursky, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for the appellees.

Renee M. Spigarelli, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for the appellees.

Ryan W. Rutledge, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for the appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-08438-JFW.

Before: D.W. NELSON, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge D.W. NELSON; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge BEA.

D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit Judge:

In May, 2001 the Screen Actors Guild ("the Guild") fired Dr. Patricia Heisser Metoyer ("Metoyer"), an African American, after PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PwC") concluded Metoyer authorized payment in excess of $30,000 of funds available for Guild use to friends, business partners, and her husband's production company. Metoyer responded by bringing multiple claims against the Guild, including federal race discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Guild on all claims. We reverse in part and find that Metoyer has raised a triable issue of fact on all but one of the federal and state race discrimination and retaliation claims.1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
A. The Hiring Process

In March 1998, Metoyer applied for employment with the Guild listing the position she desired as "Affirmative Action Director." At that time, the Guild did not have an "Affirmative Action Director" position; it had two "Executive Administrator of Affirmative Action" positions, one in New York City and one in Hollywood.3 Metoyer was contacted by Kathryn Nirschl ("Nirschl"), the Guild's Executive Administrator of Human Resources and invited to interview. Nirschl informed Metoyer that although the title of the position was that of "executive administrator," she would in fact be the "director of affirmative action." Nirschl assured Metoyer that the salary would increase up to $89,000 once the position changed to that of "director."

Metoyer also interviewed with John C. Barbadian, the national director of human resources at the time, who told her that because the affirmative action department was in such disarray at SAG, the Guild needed a national director and that her title would be changed to that of "director." Finally, during the interview with Richard Nasur, president of the national board of directors of SAG, he referred to the position that Metoyer was applying to as that of "director."

On April 27, 1998, after several rounds of interviews, Nirschl sent Metoyer a letter stating:

It is a pleasure to confirm an offer of employment to you on behalf of the Screen Actors Guild. The Guild is a dynamic organization providing new challenges and increasing responsibility.

Your current offer of employment is for the position of Executive Administrator, Affirmative Action with an annual salary of $65,000 payable on a weekly basis. This assignment will begin on Tuesday, May 26, 1998. As an employee of the Screen Actors Guild, you are entitled to an extensive benefits package including health, dental, vision, a pension plan, a credit union, and many other valuable benefits. Your eligibility for these benefits will commence August 1, 1998.

In a letter sent to Nirschl on May 6, 1998, Metoyer confirmed her "acceptance of the position of Executive Administrator, Affirmative Action, with all the terms and conditions as stated in [Nirschl's] letter dated April 27, 1998."

Throughout her tenure at the Guild, the nameplate on Metoyer's door read, "Patricia Heisser-Metoyer National Executive Director Affirmative Action" and many of her co-workers and SAG members referred to her as the national director. Soon after Metoyer was hired, Linda Shick, the new National Director of Human Resources who replaced Barbadian, again informed her that the Guild planned to appoint 30 directors and that her position of national director of affirmative action would be one of them. Within a few months, all of the planned appointments to national director positions were granted except for Metoyer's.

In August, 1999 Metoyer petitioned the Guild's Senior Staff to create a National Director of Affirmative Action position. John McGuire ("McGuire"), then the Guild's Acting Executive National Director, denied her request "because the Affirmative Action department was not structured to function nationally and, consequently, there was no need for a national director." Schick explained to Metoyer that SAG had never had a person of color higher than the position she currently held and that it would be very difficult for senior staff to accept new ways. Specifically, she stated, "There are no people of color on senior staff, and it's very unlikely that there will be."

B. Metoyer's Role in Relaying Discrimination Complaints by SAG Employees

Almost immediately after Metoyer was hired, she began to be approached by minority employees within the Guild with complaints of racial discrimination. Several minority employees complained to Metoyer that the Guild's senior staff, including Schick, Leonard Chassman, Metoyer's immediate supervisor and the Guild's Hollywood Executive Director, and McGuire, (collectively "senior management"), were discriminating on the basis of race in making promotions, assigning work and pay. Metoyer assiduously related these complaints to senior management and others throughout her time at the Guild.

Schick and Chassman responded to these complaints with blatantly racist comments. In response to complaints that African Americans were being kept in low-paying jobs, Shick stated: "I'm keeping them there because I want to keep an eye on them because black people like to party and eat and don't do their work." Chassman's response was: "They ought to be glad they have a job." In another meeting sometime in 1998 in which Metoyer put forth complaints of minority employees, Chassman responded, "All of these people are lazy and malingerers. Is that something special with African Americans that they have to socialize all the time and they are never happy? They should be happy to have this job." Many of the employees told Metoyer that they were retaliated against after she brought their complaints to the attention of senior management.

Schick warned Metoyer that she would not go far in the organization because she was too outspoken and SAG senior management did not tolerate people of color talking back the way she did. Schick commented, "You talk more than other black people here. The rest of them are like — they're like a tribe or something. They hang around together, and they don't talk. You're unusual. You talk too much." Metoyer became concerned about her job because of the actions of senior management against other minority employees who brought complaints. Metoyer asked Chassman whether she was "too outspoken" and he responded affirmatively, explaining that McGuire did not like her because she was too outspoken in attempting to implement affirmative action policies.

In 2000, SAG cut Metoyer's budget and there was an increase in racial discrimination complaints by SAG employees which culminated in the circulation of an anonymous letter written by SAG minority employees. Chassman accused Metoyer of "fomenting" discontent and unrest amongst SAG employees regarding racial discrimination and encouraging them to come forward with their race discrimination complaints.

C. Metoyer's Findings of Irregularities in IACF Grants

In addition to relaying complaints of racial discrimination, Metoyer discussed with senior management the concerns of guild members and herself about irregularities in several IACF grants. In relevant part, Metoyer's declaration states:

From the time I was hired and throughout my employment, I regularly questioned the allocation of funds on several grants that are mandated to have Affirmative Action components and projects in them. I continuously complained to SAG senior staff about irregularities in certain IACF grant funds (Brakefield, Ward, and Jensen projects) for the following reasons:

A. Shawna Brakefield: Ms. Brakefield was paid for travel for staff and her husband out of IACF funds and was an independent contractor who was given a suite of offices at the Guild rent-free and access to telephones. She was also paid $85,000 as a salary while as an independent producer [she] entered competitions at festivals with her personal projects while she was representing the Guild (obvious conflict of interest). She also paid for her husband's travel out of these funds. The Board of Directors complained that she never included protected group members in the festivals for outreach ... only her husband and her staff. She was never audited in spite of numerous complaints. She received in excess of $1,000,000 without being audited and did not account for the spending of the money appropriately. She also spent IACF money to print several thousand pictures of herself as [a] Charlie's Angel and her staff and mailed them to promote her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
314 cases
  • Patterson v. Barney
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • February 23, 2012
    ...the McDonnell Douglas8 burden-shifting framework applies in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination. See Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 931 (9th Cir. 2007). "California has adopted the three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court for trying cl......
  • McIntosh v. Geithner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • May 31, 2011
    ...Douglas4 burden-shifting framework applies in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation.5 Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 931 (9th Cir. 2007); Miller v. Fairchild Industries, Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 730-731 (9th Cir. 1986) (order and allocation of proof for retaliation ......
  • Bowen v. M. Caratan, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • November 2, 2015
    ...Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir.2008) ; Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir.2008) ; Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 939 (9th Cir.2007) ; Dominguez – Curry v. Nev. Transp. Dep't, 424 F.3d 1027, 1042 (9th Cir.2005) ; Chuang, 225 F.3d at 1124 ). "This is because ......
  • Moore v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • October 23, 2012
    ...McDonnell Douglas7 burden-shifting framework applies in the absence of direct evidence to support Title VII claims. Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 931 (9th Cir. 2007); Miller v. Fairchild Industries, Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 730-731 (9th Cir. 1986) (order and allocation of proof for retaliat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...always admissible on the question of the meaning of the words of the contract itself.” (internal citations omitted). Metoyer v. Chassman , 504 F.3d 919, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2007). Applying California law, the parol evidence rule applied to the alleged oral agreement to give the plaintiff emplo......
  • Gross v. Fbl Financial Services, Inc.: a Simple Interpretation of Text and Precedent Results in Simplified Claims Under the Adea - Robert Fuller
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 61-3, March 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...the 1991 amendments apply to Sec. 1981. Hardy v. Town of Greenwich, 629 F. Supp. 2d 192, 199 (D. Conn. 2009); see Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 932-34 (9th Cir. 2007). 152. See, e.g., Schurr v. Resorts Int'l Hotel, Inc., 196 F.3d 486, 499 (3d Cir. 1999). 153. See Brown v. J. Kaz, Inc.,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT