Leyva v. Motorcar Parts of Am.
| Decision Date | 20 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | B307525 |
| Parties | LEONEL LEYVA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MOTORCAR PARTS OF AMERICA, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC718336, Terry Green, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Lavi & Ebrahimian, N. Nick Ebrahimian, and Jordan D. Bello for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lawrence H. Stone; Jackson Lewis and Dylan B. Carp for Defendants and Respondents.
Leonel Leyva appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Motorcar Parts of America, Inc. (MPA), and its packing department manager Fred Castillo. After Leyva took time off on an emergency basis to care for his disabled father, MPA terminated Leyva, citing his insubordination regarding Castillo's reassignment of Leyva to a different work task.
Leyva brought claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)[1] for disability-based associational discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful termination based on Leyva's association with his disabled father. Leyva also alleged interference with his right to family care leave and retaliation for his use of family care leave, in violation of the California Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA; §§ 12945.1, 12945.2). The trial court granted summary judgment finding Leyva failed to establish a prima facie case of disability-based associational discrimination; and Leyva's CFRA claims failed because Leyva declined to take protected leave.
On appeal Leyva contends he raised triable issues of fact showing a prima facie case of associational discrimination and MPA's proffered reason for terminating Leyva (his insubordination) was pretext for unlawful discriminatory animus. Leyva also argues he raised a triable issue whether MPA interfered with his rights under CFRA. We agree there are triable issues and reverse.
MPA operates an automotive parts distribution facility in Torrance, California. MPA hired Leyva in March 1999 as a general assembly worker. Leyva later worked as a machine operator, and then in the packing department.
From 1999 until October 2015 Leyva received mostly positive annual performance reviews, rating him "good" or "competent" through 2003 (except for a "poor" rating in attendance in March 2001), and mostly "commendable" in 2004 and 2005. In his October 2015 annual performance review, MPA ranked Leyva as commendable in work quality and quantity, safety habits, and job knowledge, and outstanding in absences, but unsatisfactory in tardiness. In an October 2015 reference for Leyva, human resources supervisor Monica Rivero described Leyva as "a reliable, honest, and hard working individual."
Castillo became Leyva's supervisor in 2013. From that time until December 2015, Castillo was satisfied with Leyva's performance. In 2015 Leyva began working as a "closer" in the packing department, packaging orders for shipment. Leyva worked under lead closer Fausto Palafox, who reported to packing department lead Elizabeth Sanchez, who in turn reported to Castillo. Castillo reported to chief manufacturing officer Douglas Schooner.
Castillo required everyone in his department to sign in and also punch in on the time clock at the start of a work shift.
Castillo instituted the policy to ensure his employees were at their workstations at the start of their shifts, and not "walking all over the place." According to Castillo, Leyva had been signing in as required since 2013. However, on December 4, 2015 Leyva refused to sign in for his shift. Castillo did not know why Leyva suddenly refused to sign in, and he found Leyva's refusal was insubordinate. Castillo and Leyva met with human resources safety and claims coordinator Elizabeth Ramirez to address the sign-in issue. Castillo explained to Leyva that Leyva was required to sign in, and Leyva agreed to sign in going forward. Ramirez memorialized the meeting in an email to Castillo and Schooner, a copy of which she placed in Leyva's personnel file.
On February 1, 2016 Castillo spoke with Leyva about Leyva's failure to follow Sanchez's directive to work on a specific pallet. A copy of an email from Castillo to Ramirez memorializing the conversation was placed in Leyva's personnel file.
On March 3, 2016 Palafox reported Leyva had used profanity and insults toward him after he asked Leyva to work on a packing list for outgoing orders. Leyva told Palafox he could not do this because he had been asked by Sanchez to do other work. After Palafox requested Sanchez to tell Leyva to work on the packing list, Leyva called Palafox "an asshole" for "crying" that Leyva did "not want to help" Palafox. A coworker overheard the altercation. Castillo emailed Ramirez to report the incident and to request that Leyva be written up.
In a December 16, 2016 email, Castillo informed Ramirez, Sanchez, and Schooner that each day that week Leyva had left at the end of his scheduled shift but "before the orders [were] closed" without informing anyone he was leaving, which he was required to do.[3] Further, Leyva refused to follow directions from Palafox to work on certain orders, and Castillo had "caught him going to the bathroom 20 minutes before breaks and lunch." Castillo had filmed Leyva "not doing anything for an hour." Castillo stated he "would like to let [Leyva] go and have him replaced with someone that can follow direction and do the hours needed to complete orders for the day."
On December 21 Leyva met with Castillo, Palafox, and Sanchez regarding Leyva's leaving work the prior week without completing daily orders. Leyva said he did not think MPA needed him to stay late that week because he had been allowed to leave early on Monday of that week. Leyva was confrontational but agreed to do "what is expected of him." The next day Ramirez, Schooner, and Castillo met with Leyva in Schooner's office.[4] Leyva told them he had left at 2:30 p.m. (the end of his scheduled shift) the prior week because he needed to be available for his father, who was in the hospital. According to Leyva, his father was suffering from serious health ailments, including diabetes, lung and kidney disease, and prostate cancer. Leyva said at the December 22 meeting that he had told a coworker named Lupito to tell Castillo that Leyva was leaving early because of his father. Castillo testified that Lupito never told him that Leyva was leaving work early to take care of his sick father, and Castillo did not learn this until the meeting.
According to Schooner, MPA had considered disciplining Leyva on December 21, but Leyva "was not reprimanded for that time frame once [Ramirez, Schooner, and Castillo] found out about his dad" at the December 22 meeting. Leyva was told to let MPA know his needs and MPA would "work with [Leyva] on that." Ramirez offered to set up a meeting between Leyva and Rivero "to discuss FMLA"[5] if he needed time to take care of his father. Leyva was also told to communicate with his manager and the lead closer if he could not stay for overtime and to ask Palafox before the scheduled end of the shift whether he needed to stay late. On December 27 Ramirez wrote a memorandum to Leyva's file memorializing the December 22 meeting.
On December 28 Rivero met with Leyva to discuss family care leave. Rivero informed Leyva he could take an unpaid leave of absence to care for his father. Rivero "prepared FMLA documents" and gave Leyva a leave of absence request form, a vacation request form, and pamphlets on the California Employment Development Department's paid family leave program.[6] Leyva told Rivero "he had bills to pay" and so he would not "actually [be] taking the FMLA [leave]." Rivero told Leyva he could use vacation time instead to take time off when necessary to visit his father.
Leyva was aware that MPA had a process for requesting time off. He was required to inform his supervisor (Castillo) and to inform Rivero or Ramirez in human resources. In late 2016 and early 2017 Leyva took three days off work using his accrued vacation time to care for his father during medical emergencies. Leyva testified that his father was hospitalized from December 22, 2016 until December 25 or 26, 2016. Leyva took December 27 off from work and submitted a written time off request on January 4, 2017, which Castillo approved the same day. Leyva's father was again hospitalized from January 22 through 25. Leyva took January 23 off from work and submitted a written time off request two days later, which Castillo again approved. Leyva then took February 17 off from work and submitted a written time off request on February 27, which Castillo approved the same day.[7] None of Leyva's time off requests was denied. When Leyva was absent, Castillo worked around the staffing shortage by "grab[bing] somebody from the cell [to] help me out at the end of the . . . shift."
In each instance, on the same day Leyva learned of his father's medical emergency, Leyva informed Castillo he would be absent that day. Leyva testified he told Castillo each time that he had to take time off to care for his father, and Castillo told him to speak with human resources. Leyva could tell Castillo was "annoyed" by the "angry" look on Castillo's face when he asked for time off, as well as his body language in that "sometimes [Leyva] was talking to him and then he would turn his back and leave."
Leyva explained further that Castillo would give him ...
To continue reading
Request your trial