Brown v. Constellation Brands, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:17-cv-00590-BAM |
| Parties | RYAN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CONSTELLATION BRANDS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. 13)
Currently before the Court is Defendant Constellation Brands, Inc.'s ("Defendant" or "CBI") motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, partial summary adjudication filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on July 19, 2018 (Docs. 13-20). Plaintiff Ryan Brown filed his Opposition on August 9, 2018 (Docs. 23-25), and Defendant filed a reply and objections on August 17, 2018 (Docs. 26, 27).
On October 2, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion before the Honorable Barbara A. McAuliffe, United States Magistrate Judge. Shelley Bryant appeared by telephone on behalf of Plaintiff Ryan Brown. Katherine Catlos appeared by telephone on behalf of Defendant Constellation Brands, Inc. Having considered the record, the parties' briefing and arguments, and the relevant law, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
This suit is a disability discrimination and retaliation action stemming from Plaintiff's termination from his employment at CBI. See generally Complaint ("Compl."), Doc. 1. According to the complaint, Plaintiff began working for CBI in or around July 1992. As of September 22, 2016, when Plaintiff was terminated, he was a production worker in CBI's bottling department. Compl. at ¶ 11. In 2015, Plaintiff developed a chronic medical condition. Pursuant to his health care provider's directions, he requested intermittent medical leave to care for his condition. In December 2015, CBI granted his request. Id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff also requested additional accommodation for his medical condition, which consisted of breaks to use the restroom as needed and leaving work early as needed. Id. at ¶ 13. In June 2016, Plaintiff required emergency surgery for a serious medical condition. Plaintiff's health care provider took him off work for approximately three weeks to care for this medical condition. Plaintiff allegedly applied for protected medical leave. Id. at ¶ 14. On August 3, 2016, CBI disciplined Plaintiff for having too many attendance infractions. Plaintiff complained about the discipline because some of the infractions counted against him occurred when he was on medical leave due to emergency surgery. He also complained because CBI assessed vacation time for part of the medical leave when the entire three weeks allegedly should have been considered medical leave time. Id. at ¶ 15. On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff became ill due to his chronic medical condition while driving to work. He called in sick to CBI and allegedly should have been allowed to use medical leave. Id. at ¶ 16. When Plaintiff went to work on September 20, 2016, CBI gave him a written warning and suspended him from work pending an investigation. CBI claimed that Plaintiff had accumulated 10½ attendance infraction points, which it considered excessive and grounds for termination due to absenteeism. Plaintiff explained to CBI that he became ill on his way to work due to his chronic medical condition for which he could take intermittent leave. Plaintiff also pointed out that his request for medical leave for surgery several months prior was still pending and the absences should not be counted as infractions under CBI's policy. Id. at ¶ 17. On September 22, 2016, CBI terminated Plaintiff's employment, claiming that he had excessive absences. Id. at ¶ 18.
Plaintiff believes that the reasons CBI gave for his termination were pretextual, and the true reasons for his termination are that CBI perceived him as disabled and unable to perform his job duties, that CBI did not want to accommodate his medical condition, that he took medical leave to care for his own serious medical conditions and that he requested accommodation. Id. at¶ 19.
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") against CBI. Plaintiff received a "Right to Sue Letter" from DFEH dated March 15, 2017. Id. at ¶ 20 and Ex. A.
On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed this suit in the Madera County Superior Court, and CBI removed the action to this Court on April 26, 2017, invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction. Doc. 1. By his complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) discrimination based on disability/perceived disability in violation of California Government Code § 12940; (2) failure to accommodate disability in violation of Government Code § 12940(m)(1); (3) retaliation for requesting accommodation in violation of Government Code § 12940(m)(2); (4) failure to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodation in violation of Government Code § 12940(n); (5) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of Government Code § 12940; (6) retaliation for exercising rights under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA") in violation of California Administrative Code, Title 2, § 11094; and (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Defendant's summary judgment in now before the Court for review.
Unless otherwise noted, the facts set forth below are uncontroverted. As necessary, the Court discusses further factual details in its analysis. The parties' legal conclusions or assertions are not considered facts.
Defendant CBI owns and operates Mission Bell Winery in Madera, California. (Doc. No. 20, Declaration of Roman Noriega, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff began working for CBI in 1992, and by 2016,he was an "all purpose" employee in the bottling department where his duties included operating labelers, palletizers, and driving a forklift.
In 2016, CBI had a policy in place, entitled "Attendance — Employees covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement" which stated Constellation could terminate a covered employee if he or she incurred nine (9) instances of absenteeism. (SUF 1.) Consecutive days of absenteeism count as one occurrence, and disciplinary action may be taken after six (6) occurrences in a 12-month period. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of CBI's policy and was aware of its contents. (Doc. 16, Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts No. 1.)
In 2015 and 2016, Plaintiff had a medical condition while working at CBI for which he received intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). (SUF 2.) Plaintiff knew that reporting potential absences to CBI under the FMLA required notification to both CBI's human resources department and by calling Liberty Mutual (CBI's leave service vendor) at a 1-800-number ("Liberty Hotline") to report the reasons for missing work, including any requests for FMLA leave. (SUF 3.)
On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff called CBI and informed it that his absence was for "FMLA Pending." (Doc. 19, Ex. D to Catlos Decl.)
On June 28, 2016, around 6:22 a.m., Plaintiff called CBI and informed it his absence for June 28, 2016 was "personal." (SUF 4.) On June 28, 2016, around 10:00 p.m., Plaintiff called CBI and informed it his absences for June 29, 2016 to July 4, 2016 were "personal." (SUF 5.)
On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff underwent surgery. (SUF 6.) At that time, Plaintiff did not tell anyone in CBI's management he took time off for surgery. (SUF 7.) On the same date, RoseMary Anaya, a human resources generalist at CBI, sent Plaintiff a letter advising him that he may be eligible for a leave of absence under the FMLA because he had been absent from work for three days. (SUF 8; Doc. 18, Declaration of RoseMary Anaya, ¶ 6d and Ex. E.) Plaintiff claims he did not receive the letter. (Doc. 25-28, Declaration of Ryan Brown, ¶ 3.)
From July 11, 2016 to July 18, 2016, Plaintiff had not notified Liberty Mutual he wanted FMLA leave for his absences nor had he provided a doctor's note to CBI excusing his absences. (SUF 9.) By the time Plaintiff returned to work around July 19, 2016, he still had not explained his absences and had incurred enough infractions of the attendance policy for termination. (SUF 4-5, 9-10.)
On July 27, 2016, Cesar Lopez, Bottling Manager at CBI's Mission Bell Winery, asked human resources to look into Plaintiff's infractions, noting he was "at 9 infractions which is Termination . . . ." (Doc. No. 25, Plaintiff's Summary of Evidence, Ex. H.)
On August 2, 2016, CBI began conducting an audit of Plaintiff's absences. (Doc. 14 at 9; SUF 10.) RoseMary Anaya prepared a spreadsheet for Plaintiff's attendance. According to that spreadsheet, Plaintiff "called out FMLA" on June 27, 2016, but it was not approved, and Plaintiff was "Under Doctor's care" from July 11, 2016 to July 18, 2016. (Doc. No. 25, Plaintiff's Summary of Evidence, Ex. J.) A notation on the spreadsheet stated, "No doctors note received; ee states unable to retrieve from doctor." (Id.)
On August 3, 2016, Liberty Mutual, in response to an inquiry from CBI, informed CBI that Plaintiff did not have FMLA approved leave for June 27, 2016 or for July 11, 2016 to July 18, 2016. (SUF 11.) As of this time (August 3, 2016), CBI had not received a doctor's note from Plaintiff excusing his absences from June 29, 2016 to July 4, 2016. (SUF 12.)
On August 3, 2016, Bottling Manager Lopez issued Plaintiff a Disciplinary Action Report ("DAR") for eleven attendance infractions, two of those infractions—one for June 27, 2016, and one for June 28, 2016 through July 1, 2016—were noted to be "FMLA pending." (Doc. No. 25, Plaintiff's Summary of Evidence, Ex. C.) Plaintiff signed the DAR on August 7, 2016. (Id.)
On August 25, 2016, Bottling Manager Lopez asked Ms. Anaya and Roman Noriega, Human Resources Manager, to look into Plaintiff's absence for August 25, 2016. Bottling Manager Lopez noted that...
To continue reading
Request your trial