In Hammond v. County of Los Angeles, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2008 WL 162819, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Jan 18, 2008), a California Court of Appeal considered whether an employee alleging race and age discrimination against a county had produced enough evidence to create a triable issue of fact necessary to allowing her case to proceed.
The court held that a supervisor’s decision to reduce an employee’s workload, along with comments made about the employee’s age and race, was sufficient evidence of discrimination. Since the county had not rebutted the allegations by showing nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, a triable issue of fact existed and the lower court’s ruling to the contrary was reversed.
Facts
Yvonne Hammond (“Hammond”), age 62 and African-American, was employed as a nursing instructor by the Los Angeles County (“County”) Sheriff’s Department. In 2001, Betty Brennan (“Brennan”) became the supervisor of the unit where Hammond worked. Before Brennan arrived, Hammond taught seven to ten classes per month, teaching 25 to 30 hours per week. Following Brennan’s arrival, her workload was sharply reduced and eventually eliminated altogether.
Hammond filed suit alleging age and race discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). She cited her loss of teaching assignments, comments made by Brennan that she was too old to be teaching young nursing students, and Brennan’s comments that African-American employees were “dumb,” “don’t know anything,” “didn’t have any sense,” and that Hammond was hard to understand because she “was probably speaking Ebonics.”
Brennan and the County denied any selective treatment of Hammond for reasons related to race or age, and ruled that FEHA’s one-year statute of limitations precluded Hammond’s claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County and Hammond appealed.
Decision
The three-stage burden shifting test for discrimination cases in California was outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792. The so-called McDonnell Douglas test first requires a plaintiff to show that he/she 1) was a member of a protected class, 2) was competent at the position held, 3) suffered an adverse employment action, and 4) that evidence suggests a discriminatory motive for the action. If a plaintiff does that, an employer must then show that the action was taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. If the employer does so, the plaintiff must then show that the employer’s proffered reasons were pretexts for discriminatory motives.
The court held that Hammond had produced ample evidence to meet her first burden. County records showed that her teaching assignments were reduced and eliminated, and there was evidence of derogatory age- and race-related comments by Brennan. This evidence shifted the burden to the County to show that the reasons for its actions were non-discriminatory. The County, however, failed to do so, instead, merely maintaining that Hammond suffered no adverse job actions. The County, the Court said, had therefore failed to pass the second burden-shifting test. Based on that evidence, the court determined that a reasonable jury could conclude that the County subjected Hammond to adverse employment actions for reasons of race and age discrimination in violation of FEHA.
The Court also dismissed the County’s claim that Hammond’s case failed because she brought suit more than one year after the allegations occurred in violation of FEHA’s statute of limitations. Hammond’s loss of teaching assignments may have been initiated in 2001, more than one year before Hammond brought suit, but they continued into 2003 and therefore her suit, brought in 2004, was not barred, the court said.
The trial court ruling granting summary judgment for the county was reversed allowing Hammond’s lawsuit to proceed.