Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)
PLAINTIFF HAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT ON HER RETALIATION CLAIMS (CLAIMS 3, 4, 11, 12)
PLAINTIFF HAS DIRECT EVIDENCE OF RETALIATION
As stated above, summary judgment is not appropriate when there is direct evidence of intentional retaliation. Godwin, 150 F.3d 1217, 1221. Direct evidence consists of discriminatory statements or actions by the employer. Coghlan v. American Seafoods Co., LLC, (9th Cir. 2005) 413 F.3d 1090, 1095. Discriminatory or retaliatory remarks do not have to be made it the direct context of an employment decision to be direct evidence of discrimination. Chuang v. University of California Davis. 225 F.3d at 1115. Single statements are enough to provide probative evidence of discrimination. Sinai v. New England Telephone& Telegraph Co., (1993) 3 F.3d 471, 474.
Here, the direct evidence is clear. First, both Mr. Davis and Mr. Chan constantly told Plaintiff to quit or go on disability over her pregnancy and accommodation requests. Second, the other comments that were made (i.e., We don’t give a shit about your claims of harassment; pregnant women have hormones and attitudes; and you should quit or go on disability; can’t ask for help to lift things, etc.) were made by Mr. Davis and Mr. Chan as well right before she was fired. Third, when Plaintiff asked to go to the doctor she was suspended to not going back to work.
There is also direct evidence of hostility to pregnant employees with accommodation requests. When evidence establishes the employer’s animus towards the class that plaintiff belongs, this is considered direct evidence and defeats summary judgment. Id.; see also Cordova v. State
Farm Ins., (9th Cir. 1997) 124 F.3d 1145, 1149. The evidence shows that Plaintiff was discipline for talking about her pregnancy, which was the first step in the discipline that led to her firing.
Finally, there is direct evidence of bias by Mr. Davis in his deposition admission. Mr. Davis admitted that Plaintiff was complaining about harassment and saying that the counseling was harassment. Mr. Davis testified that thought that the reason that Plaintiff was disputed the counseling is because she was pregnant and she did not have to worry about anything. (See Part 12 of 19.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.