Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 October 2009 |
Docket Number | No. A121651.,A121651. |
Citation | 178 Cal.App.4th 243,100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | IFTIKHAR NAZIR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Law Offices of Phil Horowitz, Phil Horowitz and Moira McQuaid for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Littler Mendelson, Philip L. Ross, Nancy E. Pritikin and Kurt R. Bockes for Defendants and Respondents.
Our Supreme Court has said that the purpose of the 1992 and 1993 amendments to the California summary judgment statute was "to liberalize the granting of motions for summary judgment." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854 [107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 24 P.3d 493].) It is no longer called a "disfavored remedy." It has been described as having a salutary effect, ridding the system, on an expeditious and efficient basis, of cases lacking any merit. And that it has, as shown by the many cases affirming a summary judgment.
At the same time, the summary judgment procedure has become the target of criticism on a number of fronts. Some particular criticism is directed to the procedure in employment litigation, including that it is being abused, especially by deep pocket defendants to overwhelm less well-funded litigants. More significantly, it has been said that courts are sometimes making determinations properly reserved for the fact finder, sometimes drawing inferences in the employer's favor, sometimes requiring the employees to essentially prove their case at the summary judgment stage. Here we confront the poster child for such criticism, in a case involving what may well be the most oppressive motion ever presented to a superior court.
Plaintiff Iftikhar Nazir, a man of Pakistani ancestry, worked for United Airlines, Inc. (United), for over 16 years, during which time he was called scurrilous names and was the victim of numerous other indignities. Plaintiff reached the level of mechanic supervisor, the only person of color to ever hold that position. He was terminated in 2005 by his supervisor Bernard Petersen, on the basis that plaintiff violated United's zero tolerance policy in an incident with a female employee of an outside service provider. Plaintiff sued United and Petersen (when referred to collectively, defendants) in a complaint that, save perhaps for two battery and fraud causes of action, asserted rather typical claims grounded on harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. What ensued was hardly typical.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, seeking adjudication of 44 issues, most of which were not proper subjects of adjudication. Defendants' separate statement was 196 pages long, setting forth hundreds of facts, many of them not material—as defendants' own papers conceded. And the moving papers concluded with a request for judicial notice of 174 pages. All told, defendants' moving papers were 1,056 pages.
Plaintiff's opposition was almost three times as long, including a 1,894-page separate statement, papers the trial court would later disparage as "mostly verbiage," a description with which, as will be seen, we disagree. Curiously, no such criticism was leveled at defendants' papers, not even those in reply, papers that defy description.
Defendants' reply included, and properly, their response to plaintiff's additional disputed facts. Defendants' reply also included, not so properly, a 297-page "Reply Separate Statement" and 153 pages of "Exhibits and Evidence in Support of Defendants' Reply." And the reply culminated with 324 pages of evidentiary objections, consisting of 764 specific objections, 325 of which were directed to portions of plaintiff's declaration, many of which objections were frivolous. In all, defendants filed 1,150 pages of reply.
Five thousand, four hundred, fifteen pages of material were before the trial court which, following argument, issued its order granting summary judgment, the substance of which order began as follows: "Upon due consideration . . . and having taken the matter under submission, [¶] The Court finds as follows: [¶] Despite its girth, Plaintiff's opposition to the separate statement of material facts is mostly verbiage, and utterly lacking in the identification and presentation of evidence demonstrating a disputed issue of fact." There followed several pages of discussion which did not consider the evidence favorably to plaintiff, as the law requires. Then, after granting summary judgment, the order ends with these two one-sentence rulings:
This, then, is what is before us for de novo review: an order granting summary judgment that purports to sustain without explanation 763 out of 764 objections to evidence, in a record the likes of which we have never seen—not here, not in the combined 11 years of law and motion experience of the members of this panel.
Nevertheless, we deal with what is before us, and first hold that the trial court's "ruling" on defendants' objections was manifestly wrong. We then review the matter considering all the evidence properly in the record. And we reverse the summary judgment, concluding that eight causes of action must be decided by a jury.
On July 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint naming two defendants, United and Petersen. The face sheet of the complaint listed 11 causes of action, the first three of which were for harassment, discharge, and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). The body of the complaint, however, alleged 14 causes of action, with the second, fourth, and sixth causes of action being harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in "violation of public policy and the California Constitution" (public policy). In all, therefore, plaintiff alleged 14 causes of action, styled as follows: (1) harassment (religion, color, ancestry, and national origin); (2) harassment, public policy; (3) discharge (religion, color, ancestry and national origin); (4) discharge, public policy; (5) retaliation for opposing unlawful harassment and discrimination; (6) retaliation, public policy; (7) failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment; (8) discharge because of history or disability or perceived disability; (9) discharge in retaliation for taking leave under California's Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA; Gov. Code, § 12945.2); (10) breach of contract; (11) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (12) fraud; (13) battery; and (14) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the 10th and 11th causes of action, and concedes he is not appealing as to the second cause of action. We thus have before us 11 causes of action.
On August 30, 2007, defendants filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication," with moving papers totaling 1,056 pages. Plaintiff filed his lengthy opposition which, as quoted above, the trial court described as "mostly verbiage, and utterly lacking in the identification and presentation of evidence demonstrating a disputed issue of fact."
Seemingly emboldened by this description, defendants' brief here begins this way:
Passing over whether such disparagement is effective advocacy, the "girth" of materials before the trial court began with defendants, whose 1,056 pages of moving papers were in great part inappropriate, beginning with the motion itself.
As noted, the motion sought summary adjudication of 44 issues. As apt here, a defense-side motion for summary adjudication is appropriate if one or more "cause of action has no merit." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Summary adjudication must completely dispose of the cause of action to which it is directed. (Ibid.; see Hood v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 319, 321 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 296].) More than half of the 44 issues defendants sought to have summarily adjudicated fail to meet that burden, as they would not dispose of the claim.1 The effect of this misconduct is not insignificant, illustrated by the fact that many of the "issues" all repeat to some extent many claimed "undisputed material facts," repetitive facts resulting in countless pages of utterly unnecessary—and necessarily unavailing—material.
The deficiencies in the motion pale in comparison to those in the separate statement. "Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for [summary adjudication] and summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are undisputed." (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335 [282 Cal.Rptr. 368].) The separate statement "provides a convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial court to hone in on the truly disputed facts." (Collins v. Hertz Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 64, 74 [50 Cal.Rptr.3d 149].) That hardly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zamora v. Sec. Indus. Specialists, Inc.
... ... , or, except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of California: [] ... [] (m)(1) For an employer or other entity covered by this ... on summary judgment , however liberalized [summary judgment standards may] be." ( Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 286, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 296, italics added.) ... ...
-
Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club
... ... entitled to judgment as a matter of law." ( Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1154, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 191 ; Code ... for disposition on summary judgment, however liberalized it be." ( Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 286, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d ... ...
-
Soria v. Univision Radio L. A., Inc.
... ... (See Avila v. Continental Airlines , Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1247, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 440 [" [a]n adverse employment decision ... cases California has adopted the three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 ... (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 251, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 296 ; Hindin v. Rust ... ...
-
Jolley v. Chase Home Fin., LLC
... ... We collected and confirmed the applicable law in Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 253–254, 100 ... ...
-
Employment
...sufficient to preclude summary judgment.” A cautionary tale on misuse of summary judgment appears in Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. , 178 Cal. App. 4th 243, 286 (2010) (excoriating defendants for overwhelming busy trial courts with massive volumes of paper, and noting that “many employment ......
-
Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
...a factual determination from what traditionally has been the province of the jury. For example, in Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 243 (2009), California’s First District Court of Appeal held that the “same actor” inference should have no place at summary judgment: Clearly......
-
Mcle Self-study: This Is Not Your Father's (or Mother's) Investigation: How Workplace Investigations Have Changed Over the Past 10 Years
...See Mendoza v. Western Med. Ctr. of Santa Ana, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1334 (2014).19. Id. at 1344-45; see also Nazir v. United Airlines, 178 Cal. App. 4th 243 (2009).20. Mendoza, 222 Cal. App. 4th at 1345 n.14.21. Id. at 1345 n.4 (emphasis added).22. See, e.g., EEOC v. Total Sys. Servs., 221 F.3......
-
The Dos and Don'ts of Workplace Investigations for Sports Industry Employers
...Corr. & Rehab., 158 Cal. App. 4th 1612 (2008).4. Hope v. Cal. Youth Auth., 134 Cal. App. 4th 577 (2005).5. Nazir v. United Airlines, 178 Cal. App. 4th 243, 325 (2009) (investigator so biased against the complainant that the court held the investigation "can itself be evidence of pretext").6......
-
Chapter 955, SB 1300 – Unlawful employment practices: discrimination and harassment
...for disposition on summary judgment. In that regard, the Legislature affirms the decision in Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243 and its observation that hostile working environment cases involve issues "not determinable on paper." SEC. Section 12940 of the Government ......