Guerrero v. Whole Foods Market Cal. CA2/5 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/10/21 Guerrero v. Whole Foods Market Cal. CA2/5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
    opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule
    8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
    purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION FIVE
    JOSE GUERRERO,                                                  B305799
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No.
    v.                                                      19STCV02239)
    WHOLE FOODS MARKET
    CALIFORNIA, INC. et al,
    Defendants and Respondents.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Monica Bachner, Judge. Affirmed.
    Barrera & Associates, Patricio T.D. Barrera and Jeremy H.
    Herwitt, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Derek R. Havel,
    Nora K. Stilestein, and Limore Torbati, for Defendants and
    Respondents.
    Jose Guerrero (Plaintiff) was fired by his employer Mrs.
    Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. doing business as Whole
    Foods Market (Whole Foods) for failing to abide by food safety
    rules. Plaintiff then sued Whole Foods and his former supervisor,
    Arthur Tolentino (Tolentino) for age and national origin
    discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and other claims. We
    consider whether the trial court correctly granted summary
    judgment for Whole Foods, and the answer to that question
    largely turns on whether Plaintiff put forward substantial
    evidence that Whole Foods’ reason for firing him was pretextual
    and whether those responsible for the termination decision can
    be said to have acted with unlawful motivation.
    I. BACKGROUND
    A.     Plaintiff’s Employment as a Whole Foods Meat Cutter
    Plaintiff began working for Whole Foods in 1988 and,
    beginning in 2006, his job was that of a meat cutter. In 2018,
    Plaintiff was working Whole Foods’ Newport Beach store after
    transferring there in 2016 from Whole Foods’ West Los Angeles
    location. Plaintiff was 57 years old.
    While working as a meat cutter, Plaintiff was repeatedly
    trained on Whole Foods’ meat and food handling policies.
    Plaintiff accordingly understood that commingling of different
    species of meat and poultry products during cutting and grinding
    was prohibited by Whole Foods for a number of reasons,
    including public health concerns.1
    1
    A meat product with commingled types of meat may be
    hazardous, especially where the customer is unaware of the
    presence of more than one type. For instance, if two different
    types of meat are commingled without a customer’s knowledge,
    2
    To prevent meat commingling, Whole Foods’ “Grinding
    Policy/Guidelines,” a document Plaintiff reviewed as recently as
    2017 when he underwent retraining, specified that meat grinders
    must be cleaned and sanitized “between EVERY grind . . . . It is
    very important that all meat ground for our customers be ground
    in a clean and sanitized grinder each and every time meat is
    ground.” The grinding policy guidelines also stated it was
    “crucial” to maintain accurate logs memorializing each time meat
    was ground. Pursuant to Whole Foods’ “General Information
    Guide” for employees, “flagrant” disregard of food safety
    procedures was considered a “major infraction,” which could
    result in discharge.2
    B.     Plaintiff’s Termination
    On August 8, 2018, shortly before Plaintiff was about to
    leave work for the day around 1:00 p.m., Jacob Lilio (Lilio), the
    only other grinder in the meat department on duty at the time,
    asked Plaintiff to grind some pork. Plaintiff did so, but he did not
    clean the grinder or document his work in the grind log.3 Instead,
    Plaintiff clocked out at 1:16 p.m. and left the store. Lilio used
    some of the pork ground by Plaintiff to prepare blueberry
    the commingled product might not be cooked to a temperature
    sufficient to kill bacteria present in both types, thereby putting
    the customer’s health at serious risk.
    2
    Plaintiff acknowledged receiving the employee guide
    numerous times, including in April 2018.
    3
    Plaintiff maintains he informed Lilio that he (Lilio) needed
    to log the grind and clean the grind machine.
    3
    breakfast sausages and placed the remainder in a display case for
    sale.
    1.   The discovery of commingled meat
    Just minutes after Plaintiff left work, Craig Kittinger
    (Kittinger) and Patrick Wight (Wight) began a walk-through of
    the Newport store. Kittinger was a Whole Foods team leader
    responsible for performing internal audits of stores in the
    company’s Southern Pacific Region for, among other things, food
    safety. When Kittinger and Wight entered the meat grinder
    room, they immediately noticed the grinder was dirty and had
    commingled meat (beef and pork) in it. Kittinger and Wight took
    photos of the grinder and informed one of the store’s assistant
    managers, Nicolas Le Compte (Le Compte), who also
    photographed the grinder.
    Kittinger and Wight interviewed Lilio and he told them
    Plaintiff performed the last grind. Kittinger and Wight inspected
    the pork ground by Plaintiff and discovered specks of dark beef
    among the white pork. The ground pork and the sausages
    prepared by Lilio were quarantined from sale and thrown away.
    2.     Whole Foods’ investigation and termination
    decision
    After discovering the comingled meat, Wight and Le
    Compte emailed photos of the grinder to others including Brian
    Reese (Reese), the manager of the Newport store; Mark Martinez
    (Martinez), the Southern Pacific Region meat team coordinator;
    and Shelly Pope (Pope), a senior member of Whole Foods’ human
    resources department.
    4
    After receiving the emailed photos of the grinder, Reese
    arrived at the Newport store approximately an hour and a half
    after Plaintiff left. He inspected the grinder and the ground pork
    that had been placed in a case for sale and determined that there
    was commingled meat in both.
    Reese interviewed Lilio, who said Plaintiff ground the pork
    at his request and, to Lilio’s knowledge, no one other than
    Plaintiff had used the grinder. Reese also interviewed Anderson
    Arias-Bracamonte (Arias-Bracamonte), who Lilio said was also
    present when the commingled grind took place. Arias-
    Bracamonte, a member of the seafood department with no
    responsibility for performing beef or pork grinds, denied doing
    any grinding that day. Tolentino, Plaintiff’s immediate
    supervisor, was not involved in the investigation because he had
    left the store at 12:44 p.m., approximately 15 minutes before Lilio
    asked Plaintiff to perform the pork grind.
    On the day after discovery of the commingled meat grind,
    Reese interviewed Plaintiff. Tolentino was present in the room
    during Reese’s interview of Plaintiff but he did not actively
    participate in the interview. Reese showed Plaintiff photographs
    of the grinder and Plaintiff acknowledged his last grind on the
    prior day was pork (done at Lilio’s request) and he did not clean
    the grinder or document the grind on the meat grinding log.
    Plaintiff also provided a signed written statement stating in
    pertinent part: “On 8/9/18[4] as I was getting ready to leave for
    the day, [Lilio] asked me last minute to grind pork for the
    oven[-]ready set prep. I then went to the back and got the trim. I
    4
    At his deposition, Plaintiff admitted the date on his
    statement was incorrect and he meant to refer to August 8, 2018.
    5
    checked the grinder and it had pork on it [as pork] is always my
    last grind. I then put the pork in the grinder and ground the
    pork.” Though Tolentino was present for Reese’s interview of
    Plaintiff, Tolentino was not copied on any of the subsequent
    email correspondence among Whole Food’s personnel about how
    to respond to what happened.
    Later that same day, after reviewing employee time-record
    data and schedules, Reese sent an email to human resources
    employee Pope, meat team member Martinez, and others
    advising Plaintiff was responsible for the comingled grind, which
    he characterized as a major food safety and policy violation. 5
    Reese added that Plaintiff “has been with us for 20 plus years so
    he knows what to look for and what our policy is.” Attached to
    Reese’s email were photos of the dirty grinder and a copy of
    Plaintiff’s written statement.
    The next day, after reviewing the photographs, Martinez
    sent a reply email opining “it clearly looks like pork was ground
    in same grinder as beef, pork probably after beef. [¶] . . . [¶] I
    feel it is a major infraction.” Pope inquired via email about grind
    log data and Plaintiff’s training. Reese’s response stated the logs
    indicated Plaintiff had performed the last four grinds prior to the
    unlogged grind he performed at Lilio’s request and Plaintiff had
    been trained on Whole Foods’ Grinding Policy/Guidelines as
    recently as June 2017.
    Based on his investigation, Reese concluded Plaintiff
    should be fired because his conduct constituted a major infraction
    of the company’s food safety policies. Pope, who independently
    5
    In his email of August 9, 2018, Reese incorrectly stated the
    comingled grind was discovered on August 9, not August 8. In a
    subsequent email, Reese corrected his mistake.
    6
    examined the photographs of the grinder, the grinder logs,
    employee work schedules, and Plaintiff’s written statement,
    concurred. Tolentino, who did not have the authority to
    terminate Plaintiff, was not asked for his views and did not
    volunteer them.
    Three weeks after the discovery of the comingled meat,
    Reese advised Plaintiff that his employment was being
    terminated for commingling different species of meat, failing to
    clean the grinder, and failing to log his last grind.
    3.     Plaintiff’s appeal of his termination
    A week after being terminated from his position, Plaintiff
    internally appealed the termination decision. Plaintiff
    maintained “the people in charge did not give [him] the
    opportunity to explain [his] side or state what happened in
    actuality.” Plaintiff did not assert he was terminated because of
    his age, ancestry, national origin, or any requests for medical
    leave.
    Because Pope had already been involved in the decision to
    terminate Plaintiff’s employment, Whole Foods assigned Teresa
    Bronson (Bronson), the team leader in Whole Foods’ human
    resources department responsible for the Southern Pacific
    Region, to handle Plaintiff’s appeal. Prior to this assignment,
    Bronson had never met Plaintiff and was unaware of his age,
    ancestry, national origin, or any medical condition.
    Bronson interviewed Plaintiff by phone, using the services
    of a Spanish language interpreter. Plaintiff denied he was
    responsible for comingling meat products. He conceded, however,
    that he performed a pork grind for Lilio prior to leaving for the
    day, he did not clean the grinder after completing the grind, and
    7
    he did not log the grind. Plaintiff also admitted he understood
    that his failure to clean the grinder and log the grind were policy
    violations and that commingling meat products could result in
    termination. During his telephone interview with Bronson,
    Plaintiff did not report any mistreatment on the basis of age,
    ancestry, national origin, or medical condition. The purpose of
    the call, from Plaintiff’s perspective, was to request
    reinstatement because he enjoyed working for Whole Foods “100
    percent.”
    After interviewing Plaintiff, Bronson reviewed email
    correspondence regarding the incident, photographs of the
    grinder, Plaintiff’s written statement, the grind logs, time records
    for employees who worked in the Newport store’s meat and
    seafood department, and training records. To more fully
    understand the grind logs, Bronson consulted with an associate
    meat coordinator. Bronson also spoke with a meat field
    associate, who confirmed the photographs indicated pork was
    ground after beef without the grinder being cleaned between the
    two grinds. In addition, Bronson interviewed several others,
    including Reese, Tolentino, Kittinger, Wight, Le Compte, and
    Pope.
    After completing her review of the evidence, Bronson
    upheld Plaintiff’s termination. Reese eventually hired Octavio
    Rodriguez, a 49-year-old Latino man, for the meat cutter position
    left open after Plaintiff’s termination.
    C.    Plaintiff’s Lawsuit
    Months later, Plaintiff sued Whole Foods and Tolentino for
    age discrimination, discrimination on the basis of ancestry or
    national origin, retaliation, harassment, failure to prevent
    8
    discrimination or harassment, and wrongful termination in
    violation of public policy. According to the complaint, Plaintiff
    was subjected to ageist comments by Tolentino, who purportedly
    referred to Plaintiff as “slow” and “lazy,”6 and by Reese who
    allegedly told him he would not have been terminated if he had
    been “younger.” Plaintiff also alleged Whole Foods discriminated
    against him on the basis of his national origin because a White
    male co-worker at Newport store who violated company food
    safety (the co-worker allegedly failed to wear a metal safety glove
    and cut his hand, thereby spilling blood in the meat department)
    was not terminated. Plaintiff further alleged he was harassed by
    Tolentino because of his age and because he told Tolentino a
    month before he (Plaintiff) was fired that he may need to use
    medical leave to get treatment for a hernia. Plaintiff contended
    defendants retaliated against him for complaining about
    Tolentino’s ageist comments and for requesting medical leave.
    D.    Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
    Defendants moved for summary judgment. On the
    discrimination causes of action, defendants argued Plaintiff could
    not establish a prima facie case of discrimination and, even if he
    could, Whole Foods had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
    for firing him (the food safety violations) that a trial jury could
    not find pretextual. Defendants argued the retaliation cause of
    action was defective because Plaintiff could not establish a causal
    6
    At a later deposition, Plaintiff would describe another
    incident in which he claimed to overhear Tolentino say he would
    not hire someone who applied for a meat cutter position because
    the applicant, who appeared to be 55 to 60 years old, was “too
    old.”
    9
    link between his termination and any protected activity; neither
    Reese nor Pope, the people responsible for making the decision to
    fire Plaintiff, were aware of Plaintiff’s complaint about ageist
    comments by Tolentino or Plaintiff’s statement that he might
    have to take time off in the future for hernia treatment. The
    harassment claim failed, in defendants’ view, because there was
    no evidence of severe or pervasive conduct to support a
    harassment cause of action; the age-related comments Plaintiff
    claimed to have heard Tolentino make occurred on one occasion
    four months before Plaintiff’s termination.
    Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion for summary
    judgment. In an effort to show Whole Foods’ reason for firing
    him was pretextual, Plaintiff pointed in several directions:
    Reese’s error in initially identifying the date of the commingled
    meat grind as August 9 (instead of August 8); Tolentino’s own
    asserted failure on the day of the incident to comply with Whole
    Foods’ food safety policies (according to the grind logs, Tolentino
    improperly logged certain grinds he performed as having been
    performed by Plaintiff); Reese’s knowing approval of Tolentino’s
    false entries on the grind log; and Reese’s failure to have an
    interpreter present when he interviewed Plaintiff on the day
    after the incident. Plaintiff also contended he was treated
    differently from other employees, including Lilio—who was
    neither investigated nor disciplined by Whole Foods even though
    he was the one who asked Plaintiff to grind the pork. Plaintiff
    additionally observed that Whole Foods did not fully comply with
    its own Grinding Policy/Guidelines because the Newport store
    was the only store in the region with only one meat grinder when
    the guidelines specified two grinders should be located in each
    store to avoid the risk of commingled meat.
    10
    Plaintiff’s declaration submitted in support of his
    opposition averred he feared discrimination and retaliation from
    Tolentino because he once watched him throw an angry tantrum
    when one of Plaintiff’s coworkers called in sick. Plaintiff further
    declared that, during his termination interview, Reese told him
    he would not have been terminated if had been a “younger,” less
    experienced worker. In addition to his own declaration, Plaintiff
    submitted the declaration of Margarita Cardona (Cardona), a
    former co-worker who stated she heard Tolentino describe
    Plaintiff in January 2017 (some 20 months before his
    termination) as “old,” “slow,” and “breaking down.” When
    Cardona told Plaintiff about these remarks, Plaintiff complained
    directly to Tolentino. Plaintiff also filed evidentiary objections to
    the declarations of Reese, Pope, Lilio, and Bronson submitted in
    support of defendants’ motion.
    Defendants’ reply memorandum of points and authorities
    argued there was no evidence any decision-maker was motivated
    by Plaintiff’s age, ancestry, age-related comments by Tolentino,
    or by the possibility that Plaintiff might seek leave to treat his
    hernia sometime in the future. Defendants also filed evidentiary
    objections to Plaintiff’s evidence, including the declarations
    submitted by Plaintiff and Cardona.
    E.    The Trial Court’s Ruling
    At the hearing on defendants’ motion for summary
    judgment, Plaintiff focused much of his argument on what is
    often confusingly called the “cat’s paw” doctrine; we shall refer to
    11
    it as the imputed motivation doctrine.7 The doctrine imputes
    discriminatory animus harbored by one actor to another actor
    who is (at least partly) responsible for taking the adverse action
    against an employee. (See generally DeJung v. Superior Court
    (2008) 
    169 Cal.App.4th 533
    , 551 [“[S]howing that a significant
    participant in an employment decision exhibited discriminatory
    animus is enough to raise an inference that the employment
    decision itself was discriminatory, even absent evidence that
    others in the process harbored such animus. [¶] This legal
    principle has been colorfully referred to as the ‘cat’s paw’
    doctrine”] (DeJung); Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc. (11th
    Cir. 1998) 
    163 F.3d 1236
    , 1249 [“[E]ven when the harasser . . . is
    not the decisionmaker, if the plaintiff shows that the harasser
    employed the decisionmaker as her ‘cat’s paw’—i.e., the
    decisionmaker acted in accordance with the harasser’s decision
    without herself evaluating the employee’s situation [citation]—
    causation is established”].) Relying on this imputed motivation
    doctrine, Plaintiff argued Tolentino’s “fingerprints [we]re all
    over” the firing decision. In response, defendants maintained the
    doctrine was inapplicable because Tolentino was neither involved
    in nor consulted on the termination decision. The court took the
    mater under submission.
    In a subsequently issued 26-page order, the trial court
    granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In reaching
    7
    Plaintiff’s summary judgment opposition did not discuss or
    refer to the doctrine. Defendants argued Plaintiff waived any
    right to rely on imputed motivation doctrine by not discussing it
    in his opposition, but the trial court considered and rejected an
    imputed motivation theory of discrimination in its order granting
    summary judgment.
    12
    its decision, the trial court sustained and overruled various
    evidentiary objections by the parties without explanation.
    Among other things, the court sustained defendants’ objections to
    Plaintiff’s statements in his declaration about Tolentino’s
    tantrum and Reese’s purported statement that Plaintiff would
    not have been terminated if he had been younger. The court also
    sustained Plaintiff’s objection to defendants’ rebuttal evidence.
    Plaintiff did not ask for clarification of any of the court’s
    evidentiary rulings.
    On the discrimination causes of action, the trial court found
    there was no evidence that those responsible for making the
    decision to terminate Plaintiff (Reese and Pope) harbored
    discriminatory motives.8 The court rejected as insufficient
    Plaintiffs’ various attempts to undermine defendants’ proffered
    reason for terminating him as pretextual (e.g., arguments about
    different policy violations by Tolentino and the White male
    coworker who cut his hand, the references to the incorrect August
    9th date during Whole Foods’ investigation, and what Plaintiff
    believed was an undue investigative focus on him). The court
    further found Plaintiff’s effort to establish a triable issue of fact
    on an imputed motivation theory was unavailing because the
    evidence indicated Tolentino’s involvement in Whole Foods’
    investigation of the commingled meat grind was negligible and
    there was no evidence he influenced Reese and Pope’s
    termination decision.
    On the harassment cause of action, the trial court found
    Plaintiff failed to establish he was subjected to severe or
    8
    In the same vein, the court specifically found there was no
    evidence Reese or Pope were made aware of any ageist comments
    by Tolentino.
    13
    pervasive harassment as a result of his age or disability.
    Assuming Tolentino made the ageist comments attributed to him,
    there was still no evidence these comments unreasonably
    interfered with Plaintiff’s work performance.
    On the retaliation claim, the trial court found Plaintiff had
    no prospect of prevailing at trial because the evidence indicated
    Reese and Pope were unaware of Plaintiff’s statement to
    Tolentino that he may need to use medical leave at some point in
    the future to treat his hernia or of the time when Plaintiff
    confronted Tolentino about his use of ageist language overheard
    by coworker Cardona.
    Because Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of material
    fact with regard to his causes of action for discrimination,
    harassment, and retaliation, the trial court found defendants
    were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s
    derivative causes of action for failure to prevent discrimination or
    harassment and wrongful termination in violation of public
    policy.
    II. DISCUSSION
    The trial court correctly concluded defendants were entitled
    to judgment as a matter of law.9 No trial was required on
    9
    Plaintiff’s challenge to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings
    on summary judgment, which even he concedes do not “advance
    specific evidentiary arguments” are not adequately presented and
    are deemed waived for that reason. (See, e.g., Trinity Risk
    Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc.
    (2021) 
    59 Cal.App.5th 995
    , 1008 [“““When an appellant fails to
    raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned
    argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as
    14
    Plaintiff’s discrimination causes of action because he did not
    present substantial evidence that Whole Foods’ stated reason for
    firing him—his failure to comply with food safety policies—was
    pretextual. No trial was required on Plaintiff’s harassment cause
    of action because there was no evidence that would permit a jury
    to find any comments by Tolentino unreasonably interfered with
    Plaintiff’s work performance or that Plaintiff himself perceived
    his work environment to be hostile. (Indeed, the evidence was
    quite the contrary: Plaintiff testified he enjoyed his work at
    Whole Foods “100 percent” and wanted to return following his
    discharge.) No trial was required on Plaintiff’s retaliation cause
    of action because there was no dispute of fact on causation;
    specifically, there was no evidence the corporate actors
    responsible for terminating Plaintiff’s employment were aware he
    engaged in any protected activity. The remainder of Plaintiff’s
    causes of action are all derivative of the claims we have already
    mentioned, and no trial was accordingly necessary on those
    either.
    A.   Defendants Were Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of
    Law on the Discrimination Causes of Action Because
    Plaintiff Did Not Raise a Triable Issue of Pretext
    A defendant employer may seek summary judgment on a
    former employee’s discrimination claim by presenting
    “competent, admissible evidence” that the defendant took action
    waived”””]; Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 
    48 Cal.App.5th 1014
    , 1075 [refusing to address parties’ claims due to
    its “conclusory presentation” because “conclusory claims of error
    are deemed to be without foundation and require no discussion by
    the reviewing court”].)
    15
    against the plaintiff for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.
    (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 
    24 Cal.4th 317
    , 357 (Guz).)
    Absent direct evidence of discrimination—and there is none
    here10—a plaintiff must defeat summary judgment “by pointing to
    evidence which . . . raises a rational inference that intentional
    discrimination occurred.” (Ibid.; Soria v. Univision Radio Los
    Angeles, Inc. (2016) 
    5 Cal.App.5th 570
    , 582 [a plaintiff employee
    may establish pretext by showing ““‘the proffered reason had no
    basis in fact, the proffered reason did not actually motivate the
    discharge, or, the proffered reason was insufficient to motivate
    discharge’””].) If there is no substantial evidence that the
    nondiscriminatory reason proffered by the employer is
    pretextual, summary judgment for the defendant will be
    appropriate. (DeJung, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at 553 [“[T]he
    employee must demonstrate a triable issue by producing
    substantial evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were
    untrue or pretextual, or that the employer acted with a
    10
    Plaintiff argues there was direct evidence in the form of
    Tolentino’s ageist comments made long before Plaintiff was fired
    (as well as evidence the trial court excluded that we do not
    consider). The comments, however, came well before Plaintiff
    was fired and do not constitute direct evidence of discrimination,
    which is rarely found. (Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
    (2005) 
    129 Cal.App.4th 1133
    , 1148; DeJung, supra, 169
    Cal.App.4th at 550 [“Direct evidence is evidence which, if
    believed, proves the fact of discriminatory animus without
    inference or presumption. Comments demonstrating
    discriminatory animus may be found to be direct evidence if there
    is evidence of a causal relationship between the comments and
    the adverse job action at issue”]; see also Guz, 
    supra, at 354
    [“[D]irect evidence of intentional discrimination is rare”].)
    16
    discriminatory animus, such that a reasonable trier of fact could
    conclude that the employer engaged in intentional
    discrimination”]; see also Guz, 
    supra, at 362
     [summary judgment
    for employer appropriate where, “given the strength of the
    employer’s showing of innocent reasons, any countervailing
    circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive, even if it may
    technically constitute a prima facie case, is too weak to raise a
    rational inference that discrimination occurred”].)
    In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendants
    adduced strong evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
    reason for terminating Plaintiff: his failure to comply with Whole
    Foods’ food safety rules by commingling different species of meat,
    failing to clean the grinder, and failing to log his last grind.
    Supporting this reason were time records, employee schedules,
    grind logs, interviews with percipient witnesses, consultations
    with meat experts from outside the Newport store, and Plaintiff’s
    own admission of committing major infractions (not cleaning the
    grinder after his last grind or logging that grind) first to Reese
    and later to Bronson.
    The evidence Plaintiff offered to show this reason was mere
    pretext for discrimination is arguably nonexistent and certainly
    insubstantial. Plaintiff chiefly relies on Tolentino’s alleged bias
    against Plaintiff. The problem for Plaintiff, however, is he has
    presented no evidence—substantial or otherwise—that Tolentino
    played a significant role in his firing.
    Under the imputed motivation doctrine Plaintiff raised late
    in the summary judgment process, he must adduce evidence “that
    a significant participant in an employment decision exhibited
    discriminatory animus.” (DeJung, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at 551,
    italics added; accord, Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121
    
    17 Cal.App.4th 95
    , 110 [plaintiff can establish causation by showing
    that any “substantial contributor[ ]” to the decision bore the
    requisite discriminatory animus]; see also Husman v. Toyota
    Motor Credit Corp. (2017) 
    12 Cal.App.5th 1168
    , 1189-1190, 1192
    [reversing summary judgment in employer’s favor because
    executive who made discriminatory remarks was part of a
    management committee which oversaw all termination decisions
    and participated in plaintiff’s termination decision through
    “extensive discussions” with the decision-maker].)
    The documents and deposition excerpts upon which
    Plaintiff relies show, at most, two things: (1) Tolentino was
    effectively a potted plant presence 11 during the interview with
    Reese and (2) Tolentino later told Plaintiff not to worry as it was
    likely he would only get written up for his policy violations. That
    is not enough to make Tolentino a significant participant.
    Tolentino did not discover the commingled meat or initiate the
    investigation (having left the store before Plaintiff on the day in
    question); Reese, Pope, and others obtained virtually all
    information sought during their investigation from other sources
    (and the information Tolentino did give Reese about Plaintiff’s
    training was duplicative of other sources); Tolentino was
    excluded from the email correspondence between and among the
    Newport store’s management, the regional meat team’s
    leadership, and Whole Foods’ human resources department about
    11
    Joint Hearings Before the Sen. Select Com. on Secret
    Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition, and
    the House Select Com. to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions
    with Iran, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 263 (1987) [“Mr. Sullivan[:]
    I’m not a potted plant. I’m here as a lawyer. That’s my job”].
    18
    how to respond to the food safety violation; and Tolentino had no
    authority to terminate Plaintiff.
    Plaintiff also suggests an adequate summary judgment
    pretext showing on his national origin discrimination claim is
    made by looking to other employees who did not comply with
    Whole Foods rules but were not fired (e.g., Reese, Tolentino, and
    the employee who cut his hand when not wearing a protective
    glove). The comparisons are not probative of pretext, however,
    because the circumstances of the asserted rules violations are
    markedly different. No reasonable jury could view Plaintiff’s
    complaints of dissimilar rules violations by other employees (or of
    the absence of two meat grinding machines in the Newport store)
    and conclude any or all suffice to show Whole Foods really fired
    Plaintiff because of his El Salvadorian origin and not because of
    his admitted meat grinding failures that led to unsafe
    commingled meat.
    In the absence of substantial evidence that Whole Foods’
    food safety rules reason for firing Plaintiff was mere pretext for
    discrimination, and with a wealth of evidence that this reason
    had a basis in fact and actually motivated the discharge, the trial
    court correctly concluded defendants were entitled to judgment as
    a matter of law on Plaintiff’s discrimination causes of action.
    B.   Defendants Were Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of
    Law on the Harassment Cause of Action Because
    There Was No Evidence the Alleged Harassment
    Unreasonably Interfered with Plaintiff’s Work
    Performance
    “[A]n employee claiming harassment based upon a hostile
    work environment must demonstrate that the conduct
    19
    complained of was severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter
    the conditions of employment and create a work environment
    that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees because of their
    [protected status].” (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005)
    
    36 Cal.4th 446
    , 462; see also Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System,
    Inc. (1999) 
    21 Cal.4th 121
    , 130-131 [a plaintiff must prove that
    the defendant’s conduct would have interfered with a reasonable
    employee’s work performance and would have seriously affected
    the psychological well-being of a reasonable employee].) To be
    actionable, a working environment must be “both objectively and
    subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find
    hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to
    be so.’ [Citations.]” (Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods. (2006)
    
    38 Cal.4th 264
    , 284.) “[A]nnoying or ‘merely offensive’ comments
    in the workplace are not actionable.” (Id. at 283.)
    Plaintiff’s harassment claim rests on two comments by
    Tolentino: the first, which was made in Plaintiff’s presence four
    months before his termination, was that he wanted to hire a
    “younger” meat cutter; the second, which was heard by Cardona
    more than a year earlier and relayed to Plaintiff, was that
    Tolentino described Plaintiff as “old,” “slow,” and “breaking
    down.”12 Objectively, a jury could not find the comments on these
    two occasions are severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile
    work environment. (See, e.g., Jones v. Department of Corrections
    & Rehabilitation (2007) 
    152 Cal.App.4th 1367
    , 1378-1379
    12
    Although Plaintiff alleged in his complaint the harassment
    involved both his age and his medical condition, he testified at
    his deposition that neither Tolentino nor anyone else at Whole
    Foods ever made any inappropriate comments about his hernia or
    his need for treatment.
    20
    [summary judgment appropriate where alleged sex harassment
    constituted discrete, insufficiently severe events].) Subjectively,
    the evidence also shows Plaintiff did not regard Tolentino’s
    comments as creating a hostile work environment. He presented
    no evidence that his work performance suffered as a result of the
    alleged harassment and he in fact conceded that he enjoyed his
    tenure at Whole Foods “100 percent” and wanted to be reinstated.
    On the summary judgment record, no reasonable trier of
    fact could find Tolentino’s comments sufficient to create a hostile
    work environment.
    C.      Defendants Were Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of
    Law on the Retaliation Cause of Action Because Those
    Responsible for Making the Termination Decision
    Were Not Aware of Any Protected Activity by Plaintiff
    “[I]n order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation
    under the FEHA, a plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a
    ‘protected activity,’ (2) the employer subjected the employee to an
    adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between
    the protected activity and the employer’s action.” (Yanowitz v.
    L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 
    36 Cal.4th 1028
    , 1042.) Courts have
    observed that proof of retaliation often depends on circumstantial
    evidence because it consists of “subjective matters only the
    employer can directly know, i.e., his attitude toward the plaintiff
    and his reasons for taking a particular adverse action.” (Mamou
    v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2008) 
    165 Cal.App.4th 686
    , 713.) As a
    result, “‘[t]he causal link may be established by an inference
    derived from circumstantial evidence, “such as the employer’s
    knowledge that the [employee] engaged in protected activities
    and the proximity in time between the protected action and the
    21
    allegedly retaliatory employment decision.”’” (Fisher v. San
    Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 
    214 Cal.App.3d 590
    , 615.)
    Here, there was no evidence of a causal link between the
    protected activity (Plaintiff’s complaint to Tolentino about his
    ageist comments or Plaintiff’s advisement to Tolentino that he
    might need to take medical leave sometime in the future to treat
    his hernia) and the decision to terminate his employment. The
    corporate actors responsible for the termination decision (Reese
    and Pope) and its subsequent ratification (Bronson) were not
    aware of any protected activity by Plaintiff. (Morgan v. Regents
    of University of California (2000) 
    88 Cal.App.4th 52
    , 74
    [affirming summary judgment for employer because “each of the
    individuals who decided not to hire appellant for a particular
    position disclaimed knowledge of the fact that appellant had
    previously filed a grievance against the University. Without such
    knowledge, these individuals could not have acted in retaliation
    for appellant’s filing of the grievance”].)
    D.     Plaintiff’s Derivative Causes of Action
    Because we conclude Plaintiff failed to establish any
    genuine issues of material fact that could reasonably support a
    decision in his favor on his FEHA discrimination, retaliation, and
    harassment causes of action, his failure to prevent discrimination
    or harassment and wrongful termination in violation of public
    policy claims necessarily fail.
    22
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed. Defendants shall recover their
    costs on appeal.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    BAKER, Acting P. J.
    We concur:
    MOOR, J.
    KIM, J.
    23
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B305799

Filed Date: 12/10/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/10/2021