Tijerina v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
| Docket Number | 22-CV-203 JLS (BGS) |
| Decision Date | 28 June 2023 |
| Parties | BEATRIZ TIJERINA, individually, Plaintiff, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PARTIES' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS; (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Presently before the Court are Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc.'s (“Defendant” or “Alaska”) Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment (“MSJ,” ECF No. 34), Plaintiff Beatriz Tijerina's (“Plaintiff”) Opposition thereto (“MSJ Opp'n,” ECF No. 38), and Defendant's Reply in support thereof (“MSJ Reply,” ECF No. 43). Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Notice of Errata (“Errata,” ECF No. 39) which includes two declarations inadvertently omitted from her Opposition;[1]Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections to Defendant's MSJ (“Pl.'s Evid. Objs.,” ECF No. 38-7); Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Evidentiary Objections (ECF No. 43-2); and Defendant's Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff's MSJ Opposition (“Def.'s Evid. Objs.,” ECF No. 43-1). The Court heard oral argument on May 25, 2023, at which time the Court granted Defendant permission to file a brief containing supplemental authorities, see ECF No. 52; therefore, also before the Court are Defendant's Supplemental Briefing Regarding Punitive Damages (“Def.'s Supp Br.,” ECF No. 55) and Plaintiff's Objection (“Supp. Br. Obj.,” ECF No. 57) and Response (ECF No. 58) thereto.
Having carefully considered the Parties' arguments, both in their briefing and at oral argument; the evidence; and the law, the Court OVERRULES the Parties' Evidentiary Objections, GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and SUSTAINS Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Supplemental Briefing, for the reasons set forth below.
In or around July 2017, Plaintiff began working as a part-time customer service agent (“CSA”) for Virgin America. Declaration of Tiffany Tran Madison in Support of Defendant's MSJ (“Tran MSJ Decl.,” ECF No. 34-1) Ex. A ()) at 24:6-11.[2] As a CSA, Plaintiff's customary job duties involved checking in customers and working at the gate and baggage claim areas. Id. at 24:14-18. Plaintiff became an employee of Alaska in or around April 2018, when Virgin America merged with Alaska. Id. at 25:8-16. She worked approximately 25 to 30 hours per week, Id. at 27:7-10, and was a union employee, Id. at 27:14-22. Alaska's clerical, office, and passenger service employees, which include CSAs and Lead CSAs, are represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the “Union”). See generally Declaration of Steven Zwerin in Support of MSJ (“Zwerin Decl.,” ECF No. 34-3) Ex. M; see also Id. at Art. 4.C.
Mark Buenaflor was a Lead CSA for Alaska who, like Plaintiff, worked at the San Diego International Airport. Pl. Depo. Tr.-Tran at 34:3-8. Plaintiff began working with Mr. Buenaflor in April 2018, when she became an Alaska employee, and worked with him almost every day she had a shift. Id. at 34:22-35:5.
Starting in April 2018, when Plaintiff became an Alaska employee, and nearly every day Plaintiff and Mr. Buenaflor worked together, Mr. Buenaflor would call Plaintiff “babe” and “sweetie.” Pl. Depo. Tr.-Tran at 35:13-23, 37:12-17. In total, Plaintiff estimates that Mr. Buenaflor called her “babe” 40 to 50 times, and “sweetie” 40 to 50 times, throughout the remainder of 2018. Id. at 38:21-24, 39:18-21. Plaintiff never asked Mr. Buenaflor to stop calling her “sweetie” and never told him that she was offended by his use of the term with her. Declaration of Matthew H. Aguirre in Support of Plaintiff's MSJ Opposition (“Aguirre Decl.,” ECF No. 38-1) Ex. 8 (Beatriz Tijerina Deposition Transcript (“ ECF No. 38-5) at 39:3-10.
In September 2018, while Plaintiff was sitting in the leads' office “closing out” for the day, Mr. Buenaflor ” Pl. Depo. Tr.-Tran at 42:5-43:7. He squeezed her shoulders with both hands for five to ten seconds, stopping when Plaintiff got up to leave. Id. at 45:2-46:3. In total, Mr. Buenaflor massaged Plaintiff's shoulders approximately ten or more times during the period of September 2018 through late December 2018. Id. at 49:20-50:23. On about four of those occasions, Mr. Buenaflor additionally remarked on how Plaintiff's shoulders were very tense. Id. at 52:20-53:18. Plaintiff was “scared of [Mr. Buenaflor],” so she did not tell him that she felt his behavior was inappropriate or that she was offended by it. Id. at 43:12-25. She also never asked him to stop or told him that she did not want him to touch her shoulders anymore. Id. at 51:8-23. Getting up because it was time to leave “was always [Plaintiff's] excuse.” Id. at 45:14-46:3. There were no witnesses to the massages. Id. at 50:24-51:3.
Mr. Buenaflor also touched Plaintiff's inner thigh on approximately five occasions, also during the period from September through December 2018. Id. at 54:9-16, 60:17-25. The first time was in September 2018 in the leads' office, while Plaintiff was sitting at the computer. Id. at 54:17-56:13. Mr. Buenaflor slid his chair next to Plaintiff, “put his hand-his right hand on [her] left thigh and started like caressing.” Id. at 56:2-8. He gently rubbed Plaintiff's leg above the knee for approximately five seconds, at which point Plaintiff slid her chair away from him. Id. at 56:25-58:10. She did not ask Mr. Buenaflor to stop touching her thigh or tell him that she was offended and that the behavior was unwanted. Id. at 59:5-60:5, 64:7-20. The first thigh-touching incident happened after Mr. Buenaflor massaged Plaintiff's shoulders the first time. Id. at 56:17-19.
Finally, while on her break one day in December 2018, Plaintiff walked into the leads' office while eating a Rice Krispie treat. Id. at 67:3-68:5, 69:19-70:1. As Plaintiff was holding the last bite close to her face and about to put it in her mouth, Mr. Buenaflor “gets close to [Plaintiff] and he opens his mouth thinking-[Plaintiff] thought he was going to kiss [her] and he takes-[she] felt his lips on [her] fingers and he just takes it away from [her].” Id. at 67:7-14. Plaintiff, who was “just kind of shocked,” immediately walked away. Id. at 67:14-15, 70:8-15. Neither she nor Mr. Buenaflor said anything. Id. at 70:2- 18. No one else was present when this happened. Id. at 68:9-10.
Mr. Buenaflor first became aware of Plaintiff's allegations that he was harassing her sometime in 2018, as a result of “[s]tation rumor” that Plaintiff “was going to talk to HR regarding harassment.” Aguirre Decl. Ex. 5 ( ) at 152:9-21. Plaintiff first reported Mr. Buenaflor's conduct in February 2019, when she spoke to Sebina Pizzo,[3] a Lead CSA and union shop steward, in person. Pl. Depo. Tr.-Tran at 233:8-22. Ms. Pizzo told Plaintiff that Plaintiff would have to report the conduct to Alaska's Human Resources department (“HR”) in order to lodge a formal complaint of sexual harassment. Id. at 234:1-4. Plaintiff initially reported Mr. Buenaflor's conduct to Ms. Pizzo instead of Alaska management because she was “more comfortable with Sebina,” as they had both come over to Alaska from Virgin America. Pl. Depo. Tr.-Aguirre at 237:17-21.
Thereafter, Plaintiff was out on family and medical leave (“FMLA”) for a period of approximately two and one-half months, beginning sometime in February 2019 and ending sometime in April or May 2019. Aguirre Decl. Ex. 9; Pl. Depo. Tr.-Tran at 127:18-20, 251:21-25.
In May 2019, when Plaintiff had returned from FMLA and was in the break room, another Lead CSA, Bridgette (presumably Bridgette Lopez), tapped Mr. Buenaflor on the back, to which Mr. Buenaflor said, Pl. Depo. Tr.-Aguirre at 71:21-72:15; Aguirre Decl. Ex. 12 at 19. Given that this occurred in the “first couple of days” that Plaintiff was back from her leave of absence after reporting Mr. Buenaflor's conduct to Ms. Pizzo, Plaintiff believed that Mr. Buenaflor knew about Plaintiff's conversation with Ms. Pizzo about his conduct, and accordingly Plaintiff found his behavior “offensive.” Pl. Depo. Tr.-Aguirre at 71:21-73:19. Plaintiff felt like Mr. Buenaflor “put a target on [her] back” from that time until her employment with Alaska ultimately ended. Id. at 74:11-75:11. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Buenaflor made similar comments on approximately two other occasions. Id. at 243:10-44:9.
Also in May 2019, Mr. Buenaflor, while acting as a gate lead, changed Plaintiff's role mid-shift from controlling agent to boarding agent, “which you never do that”-“[y]ou actually finish the flight and then move people around.” Id. at 78:3-25. Although Mr Buenaflor was standing “right there,” he informed Plaintiff's coworker of this change rather than telling Plaintiff directly. Id. at 78:3-13. According to Plaintiff, gate leads are supposed to “mak[e] sure everything goes smooth,” but only the “admin lead” is supposed to control the schedule for the day and “change people around.” Id. at 80:1-18. Plaintiff believed Mr. Buenaflor made this...
To continue reading
Request your trial