Velasquez v. Constellation Brands US Operations, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00364-SAB

Decision Date27 June 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 1:18-cv-00364-SAB
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
PartiesMAURICIO VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CONSTELLATION BRANDS US OPERATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Currently before the Court is Defendants Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc.'s ("Constellation US"), and Constellation Brands, Inc.'s ("Constellation Brands") (collectively "Defendants" or "Constellation"), motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment against Plaintiff Mauricio Velasquez ("Velasquez" or "Plaintiff"). Having considered the moving, opposition and reply papers, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following order awarding summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims.

///

///

///

///

///

I.BACKGROUND

Defendants' operated a winery under the name of Mission Bell Winery in the County of Madera, California. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff worked at Defendants' winery from 1999 until his termination in December of 2016. (Compl. at 10-11.)1 Following termination, on February 8, 2018, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Madera, bearing Case No. MCV76854. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff brought causes of action for: (1) disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), California Government Code Section 12940; (2) retaliation for taking protected leave under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), California Government Code Section 12945.2(1); (3) retaliation for requesting accommodation under the FEHA, California Government Code Section 12940; and (4) declaratory relief as to the issue of whether Plaintiff was subjected to adverse treatment and an adverse employment action in violation of the FEHA and the CFRA. (Compl. at 9-17.)

On March 13, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff's complaint in the California Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 21.) On March 15, 2018, Defendants removed this action to this Court, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, claiming the action is proper for removal due to the diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)

On May 8, 2019, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 18.) On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 21.) On June 5, 2019, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition, as well as a reply to Plaintiff's response to Defendants' separate statement of undisputed facts, a reply to Plaintiff's separate statement of undisputed facts, and evidentiary objections to Plaintiff's evidence submitted in his opposition. (ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25.)

The Court found Defendants' motion for summary judgment suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and on June 11, 2019, the Court issued an order vacating the scheduled hearing on the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 26.)

II.SUMMARY JUDGMENT LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may move for summary judgment, and the court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S., 636 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment must be entered "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). "[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Each party's position, whether it be that a fact is disputed or undisputed, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the presence or absence of a genuine dispute or that the opposing party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The Court may consider other materials in the record not cited to by the parties, but it is not required to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010).

"In judging the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence," Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc.,509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), and it "must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and determine whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes entry of summary judgment," Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

III.UNDISPUTED FACTS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The Court will now identify those facts submitted by the parties which are undisputed for the purposes of this motion. Facts identified by "JUMF" are those submitted in the joint statement attached to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 18-2.) Facts identified by "DUMF" are those submitted in Defendants' separate statement of undisputed facts which are undisputed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 24.) Facts identified by "PUMF" are those submitted in Plaintiff's separate statement of undisputed facts which are undisputed by Defendants. (ECF No. 25.) If necessary to the adjudication of the motion, the Court will examine any additional disputed facts and determine if any can be considered undisputed based on the parties' proffers, whether any genuine material disputes preclude summary judgment, and incorporate such facts into the discussion and analysis throughout this opinion.

A. The Undisputed Facts Submitted by the Parties

During his employment by Constellation, Plaintiff Mauricio Velasquez was a member of a union and, to the extent set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"), the terms of his employment were governed by a CBA. (JUMF 1; Dep. of Pl. Maurice Velasquez ("Pl. Dep."), 19:14-16, 20:2-7, 23:25-24:6.) Plaintiff received a copy of Constellation's Handbook, Code of Conduct, the CBA and Constellation's written Attendance Policy. (JUMF 2; Pl. Dep. 19:24-20:9, 111:18-23, Ex. 26 (the "Attendance Policy").)

During his employment by Constellation, Plaintiff knew Constellation policy prohibited harassment and discrimination based on disability. (JUMF 3; Pl. Dep. 20:25-21:9.) During his employment by Constellation, Plaintiff knew that, according to the Attendance Policy, attendance infractions would lead to discipline; up to eight attendance infractions would result in a written warning and nine unexcused absences or "occurrences" could result in termination.(JUMF 4; Pl. Dep. 21:22-22:24, 112:8-24, 118:18-23, Ex. 26; Decl. Roman Noriega ("Noriega Decl.") ¶ 4, ECF No. 18-4.) During his employment by Constellation, Plaintiff was aware that failing to give 30-minutes notice of an absence (a "Failure to Notify") was another basis for discipline and that three Failure to Notify offenses could also result in termination. (JUMF 5; Pl. Dep. 112:8-24, Ex. 26; Dep. of Roman Noriega as PMQ of Constellation ("PMQ Dep."), 33:19-35:10, Ex. 6.) The company PMQ testified it has discretion not to write someone up for a "failure to notify," and will review the situation on a "case-by-case basis." (PUMF 2; PMQ Dep. 34:12-35:14, 112:12-113:8.) During his employment by Constellation, Plaintiff was aware that attendance infractions were counted on a rolling 12-month basis, and that he could avoid discipline by keeping his attendance infractions below the policy thresholds. (JUMF 6; Pl. Dep. 41:22-42:4.) The CBA applicable to Plaintiff's employment by Constellation states that the first instance of falsifying a company record will result in dismissal and the fourth instance of "chronic absenteeism" will result in dismissal. (JUMF 7; PMQ Dep. 50:1-51:13, Ex. 8; Noriega Decl. ¶ 4.)

Prior to becoming eligible for intermittent Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") leave in September 2015, Plaintiff was absent from work for reasons that were not FMLA-protected, including his alcohol use. (DUMF 5; Pl. Dep. 34:17-35:7, 35:21-37:4, 97:8-99:12, 100:14-101:3, 102:21-103:16, 106:16-108:11, 207:14-19.) Effective September 1, 2015, Plaintiff was eligible for up to four days per month of Family Medical Leave Act/California Family Medical Leave Act leave for absences caused by the FMLA qualifying reason of his diabetes. (JUMF 8; Pl. Dep. 32:18-33:5, 72:11-21; PMQ Dep. 27:10-28:6, Ex. 2.) During 2015 and 2016, Plaintiff was aware that, if he was unable to work for a legitimate FMLA qualifying reason, he had to notify: (1) Constellation of the absence; and (2) report to third-party administrator Liberty Mutual that the absence was FMLA-protected. (JUMF 9; Pl. Dep. 66:16-67:9, 70:13-71:1; PMQ Dep. 30:15-31:9.) After becoming eligible for intermittent FMLA leave in September 2015, Plaintiff was absent from work for reasons, including illness and his alcohol use. (DUMF 6; Pl. Dep. 98:9-18, 98:23-99:12, 100:14-101:3, 102:21-103:16, 106:16-108:11.) Plaintiff did not inform...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT