Moore v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
| Decision Date | 02 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | D067120 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Deborah MOORE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. |
Sheik Law and Mani Sheik, San Francisco, David Sarnoff, Burlingame, Sarnoff + Sarnoff, and Maria Bourn, Burlingame, Sarnoff + Sarnoff for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Andrews · Lagasse · Branch · Bell, Margaret C. Bell, San Diego, and
Lisa M. Magorien, Carlsbad, for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff Deborah Moore appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant The Regents of the University of California (Defendant). Moore sued Defendant for claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code,1 §§ 12900 –12966 ) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) (§§ 12945.1, 12945.2).
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Our review of the record demonstrates that summary judgment was improperly granted with respect to Moore's first, second, third, fifth and sixth causes of action. Summary adjudication in favor of Defendant was appropriate, however, with respect to Moore's fourth cause of action.
We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings in the trial court.
Moore began working in UCSD's Marketing and Communications Department (the Department) in 2008. In February 2010, Moore became the Director of Marketing. Around that same time, the Executive Director of the Department resigned unexpectedly.
In June 2010, Kimberly Kennedy was hired as the new Executive Director of the Department. According to a declaration submitted in support of Defendant's motion for summary judgment, after she was hired, Kennedy sought to restructure the department.
In early September 2010, Moore was diagnosed with idiopathic cardiomyopathy. On or around September 10, 2010, Moore was prescribed and began wearing a heart monitor called a “LifeVest.” The “LifeVest” is a monitor and external defibrillator. The “LifeVest” is worn outside of a person's clothing, like a vest, and the monitor, which is approximately six or eight inches by four to five inches in size, is attached to the vest by wires. Moore had to wear the “LifeVest” for two to three weeks.
On the first day that Moore wore the vest to work, she met with Kennedy. Moore “told [Kennedy] what [her] condition was,” “told her what the heart monitor was for,” and informed Kennedy “that there was nothing to worry about, that it would take care of itself.” Moore also told Kennedy that she “would be able to do [her] job, no problem, just continue,” that she did not feel any different, and that she would be doing therapy and taking medication to see whether her heart condition improved. If her condition did not improve, she would be getting a device similar to a pacemaker. Moore told Kennedy, “I'm fine, seriously.” At that first meeting, in response to Moore informing Kennedy that she could “do [her] work and [her] job fine,” Kennedy responded, “ ‘The first thing we need to do is lighten your load to get rid of some of the stress.’ ”
After speaking with Moore, Kennedy spoke with someone in the human resources department and asked, “ ‘[I]f I have an employee who has a medical event, do I call the hospital or do I calllike, who do I call.’ ” Kennedy also requested from human resources information on what to do about an employee “with adverse health issues.” (Italics added.)
When Moore was told that she no longer needed to wear the “LifeVest,” and that it had been “overprescribed” to her, she informed Kennedy about the change. Kennedy told Moore that she had “been in touch with HR” to ask “how to handle [Moore] as a liability to the department. ” (Italics added.)
Moore testified that her relationship with Kennedy changed after Kennedy became aware of Moore's heart condition. Based on this perceived change, Moore believed that Kennedy did not like the fact that Moore had a heart condition. Moore related a few instances in which she believed that Kennedy had unfairly criticized her work product, including Kennedy yelling at Moore in January 2011 regarding an advertising project, Kennedy seeking to change “the branding process to ‘be her own,’ ” and Kennedy being “hostile and snippy” when informing Moore and advertising agency representatives that she did not want to use the music that Moore and some coworkers had chosen for a commercial. Moore also testified that during three different meetings, Kennedy had “humiliated” Moore in disagreeing with the department's “previous branding look,” which Moore had had a role in creating.
According to Moore, after Kennedy became aware of Moore's heart condition, she began eliminating Moore's “main responsibilities,” including her work on an “open enrollment program and advertising.” Moore did not know why Kennedy reassigned the open enrollment program to someone else. In addition, Kennedy began overseeing the advertising herself rather than allowing Moore to continue doing so. Kennedy had started “sending work to freelancers,” including work that had previously been done internally. While Kennedy initially had Moore “oversee” the work of the freelancers, Kennedy later “took [Moore] off of overseeing the freelancers.”
In addition, as of November 2010, Kennedy began to meet with two of Moore's “reports” on issues that Moore believed she should have been overseeing. Kennedy also began arranging meetings that Moore had previously been in charge of coordinating.
Moore testified that Kennedy assigned Moore to work on “ ‘less important’ ” projects, such as “secondary things to do that [Kennedy] didn't consider important to the department but had to be done.” According to Moore, Kennedy was “taking away [Moore's] job responsibilities,” and Moore came to believe that Kennedy “was positioning to get rid of [Moore].”
In approximately mid-November 2010, Kennedy demoted Moore, through a Department restructuring, to a new classification. Moore's new title became “Director of Marketing and Brand Management.” Moore's salary did not change, but certain other benefits were reduced. Also in November 2010, Kennedy implemented reclassifications of Department positions and laid off two full-time employees.2 At that time, Kennedy told her staff that this “was the last layoff that was going to happen.”
Moore told Kennedy in December 2010 that she would likely have to have a pacemaker surgically implanted in early 2011 and would need “only” a “few days off work.” In January 2011, Moore informed Kennedy that she had postponed her surgery and “would need ‘like two or three’ days off in April 2011.” Kennedy did not say anything in response to Moore's statements regarding the need for time off for surgery. Kennedy has no recollection of discussing Moore's need for surgery or her statements about having to take time off for such surgery.
On February 2, 2011, Kennedy sent an e-mail to Courtney Morris, a Director of Compensation and Benefits in the Human Resources Department, indicating that she wanted to eliminate Moore's position, effectively terminating Moore's employment, as of February 15, 2011. According to Kennedy, the job functions that Moore was performing had decreased to such a point that Kennedy could assume them, and therefore, Kennedy decided to eliminate Moore's position.
In response to Kennedy's e-mail regarding the elimination of Moore's position, Morris asked Kennedy to The policy to which Morris was referring stated:
“Indefinite layoff and indefinite reduction in time are effected by unit, by classification, and by salary grade (in the event of a classification assigned to different salary grades) in inverse order of seniority, except that an employee may be retained irrespective of seniority if that employee possesses special skills, knowledge, or abilities that are not possessed by other employees in the same classification and same salary grade (in the event of a classification assigned to different salary grades), and which are necessary to maintain the operations of the department.”
At the time Kennedy requested to eliminate Moore's position and terminate her employment, Moore and Shea “f[e]ll in the same payroll, title, and the same classification.”
Kennedy's response to Morris's request for an explanation as to why Kennedy was not adhering to the policy with respect to Moore and Shea was as follows:
Thus, in responding to the request from Human Resources for an explanation as to why the policy was not being followed, Kennedy explained the reasons for the elimination of Moore's position, but did not provide information regarding her assessment as to any “special skills, knowledge, or abilities” that Shea possessed and Moore did not. Kennedy conceded during her deposition that Moore “[p]robably” had the “skills to fill” the role that Shea fulfilled. Kennedy also acknowledged that Shea had “only held that role for a few months” at the time Moore was terminated.
Defendant also has a policy regarding a reduction in force that requires Defendant to “ ‘[g]ive regular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zamora v. Sec. Indus. Specialists, Inc.
...effect on employees suffering from a disability (disparate impact discrimination)." ( Moore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216, 232, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 841 ( Moore ).) This case involves disparate treatment discrimination.The FEHA requires employers to make reaso......
-
Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club
...FEHA retaliation claims are subject to the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. ( Moore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216, 244, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 841 ( Moore ).) "[T]o establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FEHA, a plaintiff must show (1)......
-
Soria v. Univision Radio L. A., Inc.
...to Nava she intended to have surgery and was requesting time off as an accommodation. (See Moore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216, 228, 243, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 841 [holding that employee sufficiently requested accommodation of leave for surgery when she stated ......
-
Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc.
...after plaintiff's termination of employment with defendant. After the parties submitted their briefs, Moore v. Regents of the University of California (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216 (Moore ) was decided. Moore held that Assembly Bill No. 987 represented a change in the law, not a clarification,......
-
Top Employment Cases of 2016
...Cal. 5th 233 (2016).3. Id. at 241.4. 834 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016).5. 2 Cal. App. 5th 1028 (2016).6. Id. at 1038-39.7. Id. at 1039.8. 248 Cal. App. 4th 216 (2016).9. Id. at 242 (quoting Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 140 Cal. App. 4th 34, 59 (2006)).10. 248 Cal. App. 4th at 248-49.11. Id. a......
-
Mcle Self-study: Not What the Doctor Ordered: the Limited Utility of Doctor's Notes During the Interactive Process
...Regs., tit. 2, § 11065(p).18. Id.19. Id. § 11069(b).20. Cal. Gov't Code § 12926.1(b); see Moore v. Regents of Univ. of California, 248 Cal. App. 4th 216, 242-244 (2016).21. See Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc., 5 Cal. App. 5th 570, 593 (2016) (plaintiff's failure to "use the term ......
-
Employment Law Case Notes
...Employee Could Proceed With Disability Discrimination Claims Based on Perceived Disability Moore v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 248 Cal. App. 4th 216 (2016)Deborah Moore was employed as the Director of Marketing for the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) until her job was elim......