Scheer v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
Decision Date | 28 March 2022 |
Docket Number | B303379 |
Citation | 76 Cal.App.5th 904,291 Cal.Rptr.3d 822 |
Parties | Arnold SCHEER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Greene Broillet & Wheeler, Mark T. Quigley, Christian T.F. Nickerson, El Segundo; Esner, Chang & Boyer, Stuart B. Esner, Los Angeles, and Kevin K. Nguyen for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Horvitz & Levy, Bradley S. Pauley, Burbank, Scott P. Dixler, Eric S. Boorstin, Burbank; Munger, Tolles & Olson, Bryan H. Heckenlively, San Francisco, John B. Major and Samuel H. Allen, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents The Regents of the University of California and Jonathan Braun.
Fisher & Phillips, Karl R. Lindegren and Lizbeth Ochoa, Irvine, for Defendant and Respondent Scott Binder.
In this case alleging whistleblower retaliation, plaintiff and appellant Arnold Scheer, M.D., M.P.H., appeals a judgment entered pursuant to the grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents The Regents of the University of California (Regents), Jonathan Braun, M.D., Ph.D., and Scott Binder, M.D., (collectively, Defendants).
Scheer brought his whistleblower claims in three causes of action, alleging violations of three statutes: Labor Code section 1102.5, Government Code section 8547 et seq., and Health and Safety Code section 1278.5. In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc . (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 572, 503 P.3d 659 ( Lawson ), the California Supreme Court clarified the legal framework that applies to claims under Labor Code Section 1102.5, such as Scheer's claim in this case. While Lawson did not discuss Government Code section 8547.10, that statute contains nearly identical language to the language analyzed by our Supreme Court. We therefore conclude that Lawson ’s legal framework applies to Scheer's Government Code claim as well. Because Defendants, in seeking summary adjudication of Scheer's Labor and Government Code claims, relied on a legal standard inconsistent with Lawson , we reverse and remand as to those claims.
Lawson did not change the legal framework for Scheer's third claim under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5. As to that claim, we conclude that a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the stated reasons for termination were pretextual. Therefore, the judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On April 26, 2017, Scheer filed this action against his former employer, the Regents, and two of his former supervisors, Braun and Binder, alleging he was wrongfully terminated from his position as Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the UCLA Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (Department) in retaliation for whistleblowing.
The operative first amended complaint pleaded the following causes of action: (1) violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5 ( ), against the Regents; (2) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 ( ), against the Regents; and (3) violation of Government Code section 8547 et seq., the California Whistleblower Protection Act ( ), against the Regents, Braun, and Binder.
Scheer alleges that "he identified and became aware of numerous issues, violations, and concerns related to patient safety, mismanagement, economic waste, fraudulent and/or illegal conduct, unsafe and/or substandard conditions, and incompetence at the facilities of the UC REGENTS, including, but not limited to, recurrent lost patient specimen issues, mislabeling and mix-up of patient samples resulting in misdiagnosis, lost specimens used in NIH funded research, and failure and/or refusal to follow required procedures to investigate, analyze, and formulate action plans to correct patient safety issues." Scheer pleaded that as a result of his attempts to properly report and correct the violative conduct, he was terminated on June 2, 2016 from his position in the Department, where he had worked since 2004 and had served as CAO since 2009.
The Regents and Braun jointly filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication of issues. They argued that as to all three causes of action, Scheer was terminated for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons, as set forth in their June 2, 2016 notice of intent to terminate (NOIT), and that Scheer could not meet his burden of demonstrating those reasons were pretextual, as required by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 ( McDonnell Douglas ).
Under the three-part burden-shifting framework laid out in McDonnell Douglas , the employee must first establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination or retaliation ( McDonnell Douglas , supra , 411 U.S. at p. 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817 ); next, the employer bears the burden of articulating a legitimate reason for taking the challenged adverse employment action ( ibid . ); and finally, the burden shifts back to the employee to demonstrate that the employer's proffered legitimate reason is a pretext for discrimination or retaliation ( id . at p. 804, 93 S.Ct. 1817 ). In arguing that Scheer could not meet the third prong, the Regents and Braun asserted that Scheer was terminated not for whistleblowing, but
Binder filed a separate motion for summary judgment, directed solely at the third cause of action to which he was a party. Binder similarly contended that Scheer was terminated for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons, and Scheer could not meet his burden under McDonnell Douglas to establish pretext.
In opposition, Scheer contended there were triable issues of fact as to whether Defendants’ stated reasons for his termination were pretextual. Among other things, Scheer asserted the
After hearing the matter and taking it under submission, the trial court issued an order granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis governed the three whistleblowing causes of action, and it proceeded to apply that framework.
On the first step of the analysis, the trial court found that Scheer met his burden to prove a prima facie case of retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court also noted that Defendants did not contest the sufficiency of Scheer's prima facie case of retaliation. Thus, "the burden shifts to Defendant to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action."
On the second step, the trial court found that
On the third and final step, which is the crux of this appeal, the trial court ruled that Scheer had failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to pretext. The trial court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial- In re Bailey
-
Lynch v. City of San Francisco
...complaint and the discriminatory action occurs within 120 days of the filing of the grievance or complaint by the employee.” Scheer, 76 Cal.App. 5th at 916 (internal quotation marks omitted). “If the produces a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the presumption of retaliat......
-
Guatemala v. Regus Mgmt. Grp.
... ... ( Jennings v ... Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 128.) A demurrer tests ... the sufficiency of the pleading ... violations of the FEHA.'" ( Morgan v. Regents of ... University of California (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 63 ... correct, not its reasons or rationale." ( Scheer v ... Regents of University of California (2022) 76 ... ...
-
Salas v. Smart & Final Stores, LLC
... ... ( Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) ... 25 Cal.4th 826, 843, 850-851, 860.) ... The ... (See ... Morgan v. Regents of University of California (2000) ... 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 75.) He ... ( Ibid. ) ... We ... follow Scheer v. Regents of the University of ... California (2022) 76 ... ...
-
Lawson Ushers in a New Era for Employee Whistleblowers . . . or Does It?
...Lawson, 12 Cal. 5th at 718, n. 2.12. Lawson, 12 Cal. 5th at 710.13. Id., 717-718.14. (1) Scheer v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 76 Cal. App. 5th 904 (2022), reh'g denied (Apr. 13, 2022), reh'g denied (Apr. 18, 2022), review denied (July 13, 2022); (2) Vatalaro v. County of Sacramento......
-
California Employment Law Notes
...NOTES AUTHOR*Anthony J. OncidiFORMER UCLA PHYSICIAN CAN PROCEED WITH WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS Scheer v. The Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 76 Cal. App. 5th 904 (2022)Arnold Scheer, M.D., M.P.H., sued the Regents of the University of California and others for alleged whistleblower retaliation. Dr......
-
Mcle Self-study: the Top Cases of 2022
...Mizrahi, Lawson Ushers In A New Era For Employee Whistleblowers . . . Or Does It?, 36 Cal. Labor & Employment L. Rev. 6, pp. 12-14.17. 76 Cal. App. 5th 904 (2022), reh'g denied (Apr. 13, 2022), reh'g denied (Apr. 18, 2022), rev. denied (July 13, 2022).18. Cal. Gov. Code § § 8547 et seq.19. ......
-
Public Sector Case Notes
...PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS CREATED TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER THE REASONS FOR HIS TERMINATION WERE PRETEXTUAL Scheer v. UC Regents, 76 Cal. App. 5th 904 (2022)Arnold Scheer was terminated from his position as Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) at the UCLA Department of Pathology and Laborat......