Leyva v. Motorcar Parts of America CA2/7 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 4/20/23 Leyva v. Motorcar Parts of America CA2/7
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
    LEONEL LEYVA,                                                   B307525
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                               (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BC718336)
    v.
    MOTORCAR PARTS OF
    AMERICA, INC. et al.,
    Defendants and Respondents.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Terry Green, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed
    in part, and remanded.
    Lavi & Ebrahimian, N. Nick Ebrahimian, and Jordan D.
    Bello for Plaintiff and Appellant.
    Lawrence H. Stone; Jackson Lewis and Dylan B. Carp for
    Defendants and Respondents.
    _________________________
    Leonel Leyva appeals from a judgment entered after the
    trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Motorcar Parts
    of America, Inc. (MPA), and its packing department manager
    Fred Castillo. After Leyva took time off on an emergency basis to
    care for his disabled father, MPA terminated Leyva, citing his
    insubordination regarding Castillo’s reassignment of Leyva to a
    different work task.
    Leyva brought claims under the California Fair
    Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et
    seq.)1 for disability-based associational discrimination, failure to
    prevent discrimination and retaliation, intentional infliction of
    emotional distress, and wrongful termination based on Leyva’s
    association with his disabled father. Leyva also alleged
    interference with his right to family care leave and retaliation for
    his use of family care leave, in violation of the California Moore-
    Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA; §§ 12945.1, 12945.2).
    The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Leyva failed
    to establish a prima facie case of disability-based associational
    discrimination; and Leyva’s CFRA claims failed because Leyva
    declined to take protected leave.
    On appeal Leyva contends he raised triable issues of fact
    showing a prima facie case of associational discrimination and
    MPA’s proffered reason for terminating Leyva (his
    insubordination) was pretext for unlawful discriminatory animus.
    Leyva also argues he raised a triable issue whether MPA
    interfered with his rights under CFRA. We agree there are
    triable issues and reverse.
    1    All further undesignated statutory references are to the
    Government Code.
    2
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    A.     Leyva’s Employment with MPA2
    MPA operates an automotive parts distribution facility in
    Torrance, California. MPA hired Leyva in March 1999 as a
    general assembly worker. Leyva later worked as a machine
    operator, and then in the packing department.
    From 1999 until October 2015 Leyva received mostly
    positive annual performance reviews, rating him “good” or
    “competent” through 2003 (except for a “poor” rating in
    attendance in March 2001), and mostly “commendable” in 2004
    and 2005. In his October 2015 annual performance review, MPA
    ranked Leyva as commendable in work quality and quantity,
    safety habits, and job knowledge, and outstanding in absences,
    but unsatisfactory in tardiness. In an October 2015 reference for
    Leyva, human resources supervisor Monica Rivero described
    Leyva as “a reliable, honest, and hard working individual.”
    Castillo became Leyva’s supervisor in 2013. From that
    time until December 2015, Castillo was satisfied with Leyva’s
    performance. In 2015 Leyva began working as a “closer” in the
    packing department, packaging orders for shipment. Leyva
    worked under lead closer Fausto Palafox, who reported to
    packing department lead Elizabeth Sanchez, who in turn
    reported to Castillo. Castillo reported to chief manufacturing
    officer Douglas Schooner.
    Castillo required everyone in his department to sign in and
    also punch in on the time clock at the start of a work shift.
    2     The factual background is taken from evidence submitted
    by the parties in connection with defendants’ motion for
    summary judgment. We note where the facts are in dispute.
    3
    Castillo instituted the policy to ensure his employees were at
    their workstations at the start of their shifts, and not “walking
    all over the place.” According to Castillo, Leyva had been signing
    in as required since 2013. However, on December 4, 2015 Leyva
    refused to sign in for his shift. Castillo did not know why Leyva
    suddenly refused to sign in, and he found Leyva’s refusal was
    insubordinate. Castillo and Leyva met with human resources
    safety and claims coordinator Elizabeth Ramirez to address the
    sign-in issue. Castillo explained to Leyva that Leyva was
    required to sign in, and Leyva agreed to sign in going forward.
    Ramirez memorialized the meeting in an email to Castillo and
    Schooner, a copy of which she placed in Leyva’s personnel file.
    On February 1, 2016 Castillo spoke with Leyva about
    Leyva’s failure to follow Sanchez’s directive to work on a specific
    pallet. A copy of an email from Castillo to Ramirez
    memorializing the conversation was placed in Leyva’s personnel
    file.
    On March 3, 2016 Palafox reported Leyva had used
    profanity and insults toward him after he asked Leyva to work on
    a packing list for outgoing orders. Leyva told Palafox he could
    not do this because he had been asked by Sanchez to do other
    work. After Palafox requested Sanchez to tell Leyva to work on
    the packing list, Leyva called Palafox “an asshole” for “crying”
    that Leyva did “not want to help” Palafox. A coworker overheard
    the altercation. Castillo emailed Ramirez to report the incident
    and to request that Leyva be written up.
    In a December 16, 2016 email, Castillo informed Ramirez,
    Sanchez, and Schooner that each day that week Leyva had left at
    the end of his scheduled shift but “before the orders [were] closed”
    without informing anyone he was leaving, which he was required
    4
    to do.3 Further, Leyva refused to follow directions from Palafox
    to work on certain orders, and Castillo had “caught him going to
    the bathroom 20 minutes before breaks and lunch.” Castillo had
    filmed Leyva “not doing anything for an hour.” Castillo stated he
    “would like to let [Leyva] go and have him replaced with someone
    that can follow direction and do the hours needed to complete
    orders for the day.”
    On December 21 Leyva met with Castillo, Palafox, and
    Sanchez regarding Leyva’s leaving work the prior week without
    completing daily orders. Leyva said he did not think MPA
    needed him to stay late that week because he had been allowed to
    leave early on Monday of that week. Leyva was confrontational
    but agreed to do “what is expected of him.” The next day
    Ramirez, Schooner, and Castillo met with Leyva in Schooner’s
    office.4 Leyva told them he had left at 2:30 p.m. (the end of his
    scheduled shift) the prior week because he needed to be available
    for his father, who was in the hospital. According to Leyva, his
    father was suffering from serious health ailments, including
    diabetes, lung and kidney disease, and prostate cancer. Leyva
    said at the December 22 meeting that he had told a coworker
    named Lupito to tell Castillo that Leyva was leaving early
    because of his father. Castillo testified that Lupito never told
    him that Leyva was leaving work early to take care of his sick
    father, and Castillo did not learn this until the meeting.
    3   Ramirez testified MPA required Leyva, as a closer, to work
    mandatory overtime when necessary to complete the day’s orders.
    4    Leyva testified human resources supervisor Monica Rivero
    was also present at the meeting.
    5
    According to Schooner, MPA had considered disciplining
    Leyva on December 21, but Leyva “was not reprimanded for that
    time frame once [Ramirez, Schooner, and Castillo] found out
    about his dad” at the December 22 meeting. Leyva was told to let
    MPA know his needs and MPA would “work with [Leyva] on
    that.” Ramirez offered to set up a meeting between Leyva and
    Rivero “to discuss FMLA”5 if he needed time to take care of his
    father. Leyva was also told to communicate with his manager
    and the lead closer if he could not stay for overtime and to ask
    Palafox before the scheduled end of the shift whether he needed
    to stay late. On December 27 Ramirez wrote a memorandum to
    Leyva’s file memorializing the December 22 meeting.
    On December 28 Rivero met with Leyva to discuss family
    care leave. Rivero informed Leyva he could take an unpaid leave
    of absence to care for his father. Rivero “prepared FMLA
    documents” and gave Leyva a leave of absence request form, a
    vacation request form, and pamphlets on the California
    Employment Development Department’s paid family leave
    program.6 Leyva told Rivero “he had bills to pay” and so he
    would not “actually [be] taking the FMLA [leave].” Rivero told
    Leyva he could use vacation time instead to take time off when
    necessary to visit his father.
    5     FMLA refers to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
    (
    29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654
    ), which contains provisions analogous to
    CFRA. (Rogers v. County of Los Angeles (2011) 
    198 Cal.App.4th 480
    , 487; Dudley v. Department of Transp. (2001) 
    90 Cal.App.4th 255
    , 261.)
    6     At his deposition, Leyva could not remember whether
    Rivero shared any paperwork with him at the meeting.
    6
    B.     Leyva Takes Time Off To Care for His Father
    Leyva was aware that MPA had a process for requesting
    time off. He was required to inform his supervisor (Castillo) and
    to inform Rivero or Ramirez in human resources. In late 2016
    and early 2017 Leyva took three days off work using his accrued
    vacation time to care for his father during medical emergencies.
    Leyva testified that his father was hospitalized from
    December 22, 2016 until December 25 or 26, 2016. Leyva took
    December 27 off from work and submitted a written time off
    request on January 4, 2017, which Castillo approved the same
    day. Leyva’s father was again hospitalized from January 22
    through 25. Leyva took January 23 off from work and submitted
    a written time off request two days later, which Castillo again
    approved. Leyva then took February 17 off from work and
    submitted a written time off request on February 27, which
    Castillo approved the same day.7 None of Leyva’s time off
    requests was denied. When Leyva was absent, Castillo worked
    around the staffing shortage by “grab[bing] somebody from the
    cell [to] help me out at the end of the . . . shift.”
    In each instance, on the same day Leyva learned of his
    father’s medical emergency, Leyva informed Castillo he would be
    absent that day. Leyva testified he told Castillo each time that
    he had to take time off to care for his father, and Castillo told him
    to speak with human resources. Leyva could tell Castillo was
    “annoyed” by the “angry” look on Castillo’s face when he asked for
    time off, as well as his body language in that “sometimes [Leyva]
    was talking to him and then he would turn his back and leave.”
    7     Leyva also took a sick day on February 21, 2017, which
    Castillo approved on February 27.
    7
    Leyva explained further that Castillo would give him “an upset
    stare. Like his face and then he would turn around and leave me
    talking to myself. Like it was disrespectful.”
    C.     Leyva’s Termination
    On February 27, 2017 (the same day Castillo approved
    Leyva’s third request for time off to care for his father), Castillo
    informed Leyva he would be moving to a different work area to
    train for a different task—instead of packing alternators, Leyva
    would pack wheel hubs. Leyva became upset and responded that
    he did not remember how to do it. According to Castillo, Leyva
    threatened to sue if he was moved. Castillo and Leyva met with
    Rivero to discuss Leyva’s refusal to change positions. Rivero
    summarized the meeting in a memorandum to Leyva’s file.
    According to the memorandum, during the meeting Leyva
    asserted Castillo was only moving him because he had “been out”
    to care for his father. Castillo said the move was due to
    production necessities, not Leyva’s absences. Rivero informed
    Leyva he was “simply being moved within his department to
    perform different tasks,” that reassignment was standard
    practice for training and meeting production requirements, and
    Leyva’s refusal was insubordination. According to Rivero and
    Castillo, Leyva then requested to be transferred to the quality
    control department. Rivero told Leyva to continue working in
    packing until his transfer request was approved. Leyva denied
    that he ever asked for a transfer.
    According to Castillo, closers underwent cross-training for
    different tasks when needed, and Castillo had requested at least
    two other closers change tasks in the packing department in or
    around February 2017. Castillo had no particular reason for
    8
    choosing Leyva for the reassignment rather than another
    employee. Palafox testified, however, that he never saw Castillo
    ask any of the other closers who reported to Palafox to go work or
    train in a different department.
    The parties dispute the events of February 28, 2017. Leyva
    testified he reported to work at around 6:00 a.m. as scheduled
    and performed packing and shipping work for about an hour. At
    around 7:00 a.m. the head of security, Jaime Galvan, approached
    Leyva and told him that Castillo had ordered him to remove
    Leyva from the worksite. After Galvan escorted him outside,
    Leyva waited around to discuss the situation with Rivero or
    Ramirez. At around 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. Leyva saw Rivero and
    Ramirez arriving to work and approached them. Leyva asked
    them why Castillo had “taken [him] out of the company” and
    requested to speak with Schooner. Rivero and Ramirez did not
    know why Leyva was removed and told Leyva to return in the
    afternoon to meet with Schooner.8
    Castillo testified that on the morning of February 28
    between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. Sanchez called Castillo and reported
    Leyva was not engaging in training for his newly assigned tasks,
    and instead was standing with his hands in his pockets and was
    not picking up boxes. Castillo told Sanchez to direct Leyva to
    train. A few minutes later, Castillo called Sanchez for an update.
    Sanchez replied that Leyva told her he was working but
    continued to stand with his arms crossed. This was why Castillo
    directed Galvan to escort Leyva outside. Castillo also contacted
    Schooner to tell him what was happening and filed an incident
    8    Rivero denied she spoke with Leyva on the morning of
    February 28, 2017.
    9
    report. Sanchez also submitted an incident report that day
    stating she observed Leyva “not working.” Palafox likewise
    submitted an incident report stating Leyva did not work in his
    department, but he observed Leyva standing “with his arms
    crossed.”
    Ramirez first learned from Galvan that Leyva had been
    escorted from the building for refusing to work. When Ramirez
    arrived to work sometime before 9:00 a.m., she saw Leyva
    waiting in the parking lot. She brought Leyva into her office.
    Leyva told Ramirez he did not want to work in packing and the
    quality control department had approved his transfer. Ramirez
    “explained the transfer process” to Leyva and “asked him to go
    back to his workstation several times.” Leyva responded, “‘If you
    don’t transfer me, then fire me.’” Ramirez explained that if
    Leyva walked off the job, this would be treated as his resignation,
    and she urged him to return to his workstation. Leyva told
    Ramirez he was leaving, but he asked Ramirez to set up a
    meeting with Schooner. Ramirez wrote a memorandum to
    Leyva’s file summarizing the meeting.
    Later that day Rivero, Ramirez, and Schooner met to
    discuss Leyva.9 Rivero testified that she told Schooner what had
    happened the prior day and that morning, and in response
    Schooner stated he was “‘making the decision to terminate
    Mr. Leyva.’” Schooner instructed Rivero and Ramirez to prepare
    termination paperwork and a final paycheck.
    At around 3:00 p.m. that afternoon, Leyva met with
    Schooner, Castillo, Rivero, and Ramirez in Schooner’s office.
    9     Rivero could not remember whether the discussion took
    place in person or by phone or email.
    10
    According to Leyva, Schooler said, “‘You’re fired,’” but he did not
    give an explanation. At that point Rivera provided Leyva a
    check, and Leyva said “‘thank you.’” Leyva left without asking
    why he was being terminated. Schooner testified that Leyva was
    told he was insubordinate for refusing to work and Schooner
    would not “transfer a problem to another department.” According
    to Rivero, Schooner told Leyva he needed to follow directions and
    move to another area to meet the company’s needs.
    Castillo testified Leyva resigned. Similarly, Schooner in
    his deposition denied making any decision to terminate Leyva
    and testified Leyva “self-terminated,” in that “[h]e refused to
    work and he quit.” However, Leyva’s final paycheck indicated
    Leyva’s employment ended due to “involuntary termination,” and
    MPA issued a termination notice to Leyva, signed by Castillo,
    stating Leyva was dismissed involuntarily for “insubordination.”
    D.     Leyva’s Complaint
    On August 17, 2018 Leyva filed this action against MPA
    and Castillo alleging, among other things, MPA terminated him
    because of his association with his disabled father and in
    retaliation for his use of medical leave. Leyva’s operative first
    amended complaint alleged causes of action against MPA for (1)
    associational discrimination in violation of FEHA based on
    disability; (2) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; (3)
    interference with his right to leave in violation of CFRA; (4)
    retaliation in violation of CFRA based on his request for or use of
    medical leave; (5) wrongful termination in violation of public
    policy; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Only
    Leyva’s sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional
    distress was alleged against Castillo.
    11
    Leyva alleged MPA interfered with his rights under CFRA
    by refusing to provide protected leave, failing to designate his
    time off as protected leave, and failing to reinstate him after his
    leave ended. As to his wrongful termination claim, Leyva alleged
    MPA violated the public policies embodied in FEHA and CFRA.
    E.     Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
    On November 20, 2019 MPA and Castillo filed a motion for
    summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.
    In support of their motion, defendants submitted deposition
    testimony, declarations, and other evidence relating to Leyva’s
    employment and time off. Defendants argued Leyva’s
    discrimination claim failed because Leyva was not qualified for
    his position given his history of insubordination; Leyva could not
    establish MPA was motivated to terminate Leyva due to his
    father’s disability because his insubordination predated his time
    off to care for his father; and MPA had a legitimate,
    nondiscriminatory business reason for its actions, namely,
    Leyva’s insubordination, which Leyva could not show was
    pretextual.
    As to Leyva’s CFRA interference claim, defendants argued
    Leyva declined to take the protected leave of absence MPA
    offered to him and received the time off he requested. Leyva’s
    CFRA retaliation claim failed because Leyva could not show he
    engaged in protected activity or establish MPA’s termination of
    Leyva was caused by his protected activity because Leyva
    declined to take the CFRA leave offered to him and MPA
    approved his requests for time off. Further, MPA had a
    legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason for its actions,
    namely, Leyva’s insubordination, which Leyva could not show
    12
    was pretextual. Leyva’s claim for wrongful termination failed
    because MPA did not violate FEHA or CFRA in terminating
    Leyva. Leyva’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
    failed because without an actionable discrimination or retaliation
    claim, Leyva could not show defendants’ conduct was extreme or
    outrageous. Defendants also moved for summary adjudication of
    Leyva’s request for punitive damages, arguing Leyva could not
    show by clear and convincing evidence any officer, director, or
    managing agent of MPA engaged in or authorized conduct
    constituting oppression, fraud, or malice.
    Defendants attached copies of Leyva’s approved time off
    requests from December 2016 through February 2017 and
    memoranda to Leyva’s employment file. Defendants attached
    excerpts from the deposition testimony of Schooner, Castillo,
    Rivero, and Ramirez and declarations by Ramirez, Sanchez,
    Palafox, Galvan, and others. Defendants also submitted excerpts
    from Leyva’s November 15, 2017 deposition in a workers’
    compensation matter, in which Leyva testified he believed his
    supervisor was upset when he asked for time off because “[h]e
    would never talk” to Leyva but would send him to speak with
    human resources. Asked “did anyone tell you that you were
    taking too many times off work in the last month,” Leyva
    responded, “Yes. My supervisor.” Asked exactly what the
    supervisor told Leyva, Leyva stated, “That I was missing too
    much.” When he was again asked exactly what the supervisor
    said, Leyva responded, “No. He didn’t tell me anything, but due
    to his behavior” of always watching Leyva’s work, Leyva believed
    his supervisor was upset when he asked for time off. Leyva was
    again asked whether his supervisor “actually approached [Leyva]
    13
    and said that he wasn’t happy with your absence.” Leyva replied,
    “No. He never approached me.”
    In his opposition, Leyva argued there were disputed
    questions of material fact whether MPA terminated him based on
    his father’s disability or in retaliation for taking medical leave
    under CFRA. Leyva submitted excerpts from the depositions of
    Castillo and Palafox, which he asserted showed Castillo singled
    him out for disparate treatment by reassigning him to a different
    department on February 27, 2017. Leyva also submitted excerpts
    from his April 18, 2019 deposition in this action, in which Leyva
    testified Castillo came to Leyva’s work area on February 27 and
    told Leyva that “he was maybe going to fire me because of the
    days that I was requesting frequently to go and take care of my
    father about the cancer and all the other illnesses.” Leyva
    argued Castillo’s statements constituted direct evidence of
    discriminatory animus, and further, the timing of his termination
    one day after Castillo approved his third emergency request for
    time off to care for his father showed MPA’s proffered
    nondiscriminatory reason for termination was pretextual.
    Further, Leyva was a 17-year employee of MPA with
    predominantly positive performance reviews. Castillo’s negative
    response to Leyva’s requests for time off showed pretext. MPA’s
    narrative regarding Leyva’s termination was inconsistent and
    implausible, alternately characterizing the end of Leyva’s
    employment as a resignation and a termination. Leyva also
    disputed he ever requested a transfer or refused to work. Leyva
    asserted MPA interfered with his rights under CFRA by
    terminating him for requesting or taking protected leave and by
    failing to inform him in writing of his rights under CFRA. As to
    his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, Leyva
    14
    argued triable issues existed whether defendants’ outrageous
    conduct caused Leyva severe emotional distress.
    Leyva submitted MPA’s response to a form interrogatory,
    in which defendants admitted Leyva was terminated, but in
    explaining the reasons for the termination, stated Leyva
    “resigned his employment on February 28, 2017.” MPA’s
    response also described how Leyva was “insubordinate” in that he
    refused to cross-train or to return to work. MPA admitted that
    Castillo, Rivero, and Schooner provided information relied upon
    in the termination decision.
    In their reply,10 defendants argued Leyva had not raised a
    triable issue of fact whether Castillo told Leyva he may be fired
    for taking too much time off in light of Leyva’s earlier deposition
    testimony in the workers’ compensation matter that Castillo
    “never made any comments to him about missing time from work
    to care for his father.” Defendants argued Leyva could not
    contradict his earlier deposition testimony to avoid summary
    judgment, citing D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners
    (1974) 
    11 Cal.3d 1
    , 21-22.
    F.     The Trial Court’s Ruling
    After a hearing, on February 20, 2020 the trial court
    granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court
    ruled Leyva’s claim for associational discrimination under FEHA
    failed because Leyva had not shown a prima facie case for relief.
    The court reasoned the proximity in time between Leyva’s time
    off to care for his father and MPA’s decision to terminate Leyva
    10    On our own motion we augment the record to include
    defendants’ January 31, 2020 reply in support of motion for
    summary judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)
    15
    “proves nothing here” because Leyva “only took vacation which
    was already part of his employment bargain.” The court found
    Leyva had failed to “explain[ ] what Defendants had to gain by
    firing him which they wouldn’t gain by firing anyone else who
    took vacation.” The court dismissed Leyva’s “speculations about
    the meaning behind Castillo’s facial expressions.” The court
    found Leyva’s deposition testimony that Castillo approached him
    and told him he might be fired for taking time off did not create a
    triable issue of fact because Castillo did not “actually fire[ ]”
    Leyva (Schooner did), the comment by Castillo was “something
    out of caricature” in “mirroring the language used to set forth an
    element of this claim,” and in Leyva’s earlier deposition taken in
    his workers’ compensation case, Leyva denied Castillo said
    anything to him about taking time off. For this reason the court
    disregarded Leyva’s deposition testimony.
    The trial court found Leyva’s claims for interference and
    retaliation in violation of CFRA failed because Leyva declined to
    take protected leave. The court concluded Leyva’s claims for
    wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
    and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation also failed
    because the claims were derivative of his other claims.
    On May 22, 2020 the trial court entered judgment for
    defendants. Leyva timely appealed.
    16
    DISCUSSION
    A.     Standard of Review on Summary Judgment
    Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no
    triable issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c);
    Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018)
    
    4 Cal.5th 607
    , 618; Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los
    Angeles (2021) 
    70 Cal.App.5th 657
    , 668.) “‘“‘“We review the trial
    court’s decision de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in
    the moving and opposing papers except that to which objections
    were made and sustained.”’ [Citation.] We liberally construe the
    evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and
    resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”’”
    (Hampton v. County of San Diego (2015) 
    62 Cal.4th 340
    , 347;
    accord, Doe, at p. 669; Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil
    Corporation (2020) 
    57 Cal.App.5th 1054
    , 1068.)
    A defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial
    burden of presenting evidence that a cause of action lacks merit
    because the plaintiff cannot establish an element of the cause of
    action or there is a complete defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
    subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 
    25 Cal.4th 826
    , 853; Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, supra,
    57 Cal.App.5th at p. 1068.) If the defendant satisfies this initial
    burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence
    demonstrating there is a triable issue of material fact. (Code Civ.
    Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Aguilar, at p. 850; Sabetian, at
    p. 1069.) “The plaintiff . . . shall not rely upon the allegations or
    denials of its pleadings to show . . . a triable issue of material fact
    exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that
    17
    a triable issue of material fact exists.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
    subd. (p)(2); accord, Roman v. BRE Properties, Inc. (2015)
    
    237 Cal.App.4th 1040
    , 1054 [“It is fundamental that to defeat
    summary judgment a plaintiff must show ‘specific facts’ and
    cannot rely on allegations of the complaint.”]; Regional Steel
    Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (2014) 
    226 Cal.App.4th 1377
    ,
    1388.)
    In evaluating claims of discrimination under FEHA,
    California courts apply the burden-shifting approach set forth in
    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 
    411 U.S. 792
    . (Harris
    v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 
    56 Cal.4th 203
    , 214; Guz v. Bechtel
    National, Inc. (2000) 
    24 Cal.4th 317
    , 354 (Guz).) The same
    approach is applied in evaluating claims of retaliation under
    FEHA and CFRA. (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005)
    
    36 Cal.4th 1028
    , 1042 [applying McDonnell Douglas burden-
    shifting to claim of retaliation under FEHA]; Bareno v. San Diego
    Community College Dist. (2017) 
    7 Cal.App.5th 546
    , 560 [“CFRA
    retaliation claims . . . are subject to the McDonnell Douglas
    burden-shifting analysis [citation].”].)
    Under this approach, if the plaintiff establishes a prima
    facie case supporting his or her discrimination or retaliation
    claim, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption
    of discrimination or retaliation by offering a legitimate,
    nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
    (Harris v. City of Santa Monica, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 214; Guz,
    
    supra,
     24 Cal.4th at p. 355.) An employer may meet its initial
    burden in moving for summary judgment or adjudication of an
    employment discrimination or retaliation cause of action by
    presenting evidence that one or more elements of a prima facie
    case is lacking, or the employer acted for a legitimate,
    18
    nondiscriminatory reason. (Husman v. Toyota Motor Credit
    Corp. (2017) 
    12 Cal.App.5th 1168
    , 1181; Featherstone v. Southern
    California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 
    10 Cal.App.5th 1150
    , 1158; Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. (2016)
    
    5 Cal.App.5th 570
    , 591 (Soria).) A legitimate, nondiscriminatory
    reason is one that is unrelated to the prohibited bias and, if true,
    would preclude a finding of discrimination or retaliation. (Guz,
    at p. 358.) “[I]f nondiscriminatory, [the employer’s] true reasons
    need not necessarily have been wise or correct. [Citations.]
    While the objective soundness of an employer’s proffered reasons
    supports their credibility . . . , the ultimate issue is simply
    whether the employer acted with a motive to discriminate
    illegally.” (Ibid.)
    If the employer satisfies its initial burden, the burden
    shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence creating a triable issue
    of fact showing the employer’s stated reason was a pretext for
    unlawful animus in order to avoid summary judgment or
    adjudication. (Husman v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 
    supra,
    12 Cal.App.5th at p. 1182; Featherstone v. Southern California
    Permanente Medical Group, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1158-
    1159; Soria, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 591.) “The plaintiff’s
    evidence must be sufficient to support a reasonable inference that
    discrimination [or retaliation] was a substantial motivating
    factor in the decision. [Citations.] The stronger the employer’s
    showing of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the stronger
    the plaintiff’s evidence must be in order to create a reasonable
    inference of a discriminatory [or retaliatory] motive.”
    (Featherstone, at p. 1159; see Soria, at p. 591 [plaintiff must
    produce “‘“substantial responsive evidence” that the employer’s
    showing was untrue or pretextual’”].)
    19
    To meet his or her burden, the plaintiff may present
    evidence showing the stated reason by the employer was
    “unworthy of credence” as circumstantial evidence of pretext.
    (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 361; see Reeves v. Sanderson
    Plumbing Products, Inc. (2000) 
    530 U.S. 133
    , 147 [“In
    appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer
    from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is
    dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose.”].) However,
    in order to prevail, a plaintiff must present evidence to support a
    rational inference that intentional discrimination or retaliation,
    “on grounds prohibited by the statute, was the true cause of the
    employer’s actions.” (Guz, at p. 361, italics omitted; accord, Serri
    v. Santa Clara University (2014) 
    226 Cal.App.4th 830
    , 863 [“‘“the
    [employee] must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities,
    inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s
    proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable
    factfinder could rationally find them ‘unworthy of credence’”’”].)
    B.    Leyva Raised a Triable Issue of Fact as to His FEHA
    Disability Discrimination Claim
    FEHA prohibits an employer from subjecting an employee
    to an adverse employment action based on the employee’s
    protected status, including his or her physical disability.
    (§ 12940, subd. (a).) FEHA defines a “physical disability” to
    include “a perception . . . that the person is associated with a
    person who has, or is perceived to have” a physical disability.
    (§ 12926, subd. (o).) “Accordingly, when FEHA forbids
    discrimination based on a disability, it also forbids discrimination
    based on a person’s association with another who has a
    disability.” (Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc.
    20
    (2016) 
    2 Cal.App.5th 1028
    , 1036 (Castro-Ramirez); accord, Rope
    v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 
    220 Cal.App.4th 635
    , 656-657 (Rope), superseded by statute on another ground.)
    To prevail on his FEHA disability discrimination claim,
    Leyva needed to show “(1) he was a member of a protected class;
    (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing
    competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse
    employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of
    an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests
    discriminatory motive.” (Guz, 
    supra,
     24 Cal.4th at p. 355; accord,
    Castro-Ramirez, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 1037.) “Adapting this
    framework to the associational discrimination context, the
    ‘disability’ from which the plaintiff suffers is his or her
    association with a disabled person.” (Castro-Ramirez, at p. 1037;
    see Rope, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 658.) As to a
    discriminatory motive, “the disability must be a substantial
    factor motivating the employer’s adverse employment action.”
    (Castro-Ramirez, at p. 1037.) It is undisputed Leyva has shown
    an association with a disabled person—his ailing father.
    However, the parties disagree as to whether Leyva has shown his
    association with his disabled father was a substantial factor
    motivating MPA’s termination of Leyva’s employment.
    MPA argues Leyva has failed to prove a prima facie case of
    associational discrimination because he has not shown
    circumstances suggesting MPA had any motive to discriminate
    against him as a non-disabled employee for his association with
    his disabled father. MPA asserts there is no evidence of animus
    given that Leyva used accrued vacation time to care for his
    father, imposing no greater burden than any other similarly
    situated employee using vacation time. We are not persuaded.
    21
    A plaintiff may make out a prima facie case of disability-
    based associational discrimination by submitting evidence “‘the
    employer [had] a motive to discriminate against a nondisabled
    employee who is merely associated with a disabled person,’” for
    example, by showing the employer viewed the employee’s
    association as an expense, a distraction, or a disability by
    association. (Castro-Ramirez, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1041-
    1042; see Rope, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 657.) Leyva raised a
    triable issue of fact whether Castillo, and through him MPA,
    viewed Leyva’s need for time off to care for his father as a
    distraction and an inconvenience. (See Castro-Ramirez, supra,
    2 Cal.App.5th at p. 1043 [evidence employee’s supervisor refused
    to schedule employee’s routes to allow him to administer his son’s
    dialysis raised reasonable inference supervisor “wanted to avoid
    the inconvenience and distraction” posed by employee’s need to
    care for his disabled son]; Rope, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 658
    [evidence employer terminated employee two days before he was
    scheduled to take paid leave to donate kidney to his physically
    disabled sister supported reasonable inference employer “acted
    preemptively to avoid an expense stemming” from employee’s
    association].)
    Leyva’s time off requests, though processed and approved
    as requests to use paid accrued vacation time, were made on an
    emergency basis and on the same day as the requested time off.
    Leyva took time off three times in the three months before his
    termination on an emergency basis. Further, there was evidence
    the last minute requests placed a burden on MPA. While
    Castillo’s December 16, 2016 email to Schooner, Ramirez, and
    others, in which Castillo requested to replace Leyva with
    “someone that can follow direction and do the hours needed to
    22
    complete orders for the day,” predated Castillo’s knowledge that
    Leyva’s absences were to help care for his father, the email
    nonetheless provides evidence of the burden Leyva’s need for
    time off imposed on operations. Castillo’s complaint that Leyva’s
    coworkers were “complaining of picking up his part of the work”
    illustrates the inconvenience caused by Leyva’s need for time off
    on an emergency basis. In addition, when Leyva was absent,
    Castillo had to rearrange labor on the work floor by “grab[bing]
    somebody from the cell [to] help [Castillo] out at the end of the
    . . . shift.” And Schooner testified MPA was “short people” at the
    time Leyva was terminated, supporting an inference MPA was
    also short staffed while Leyva was requesting emergency time off
    just days and weeks earlier. In addition, the temporal proximity
    between Leyva’s time off requests and MPA’s termination
    decision (on the day after Castillo approved Leyva’s third
    emergency request for time off to care for his father), provides
    further support for Leyva’s prima facie case. (Doe v.
    SoftwareONE Inc. (2022) 
    85 Cal.App.5th 98
    , 111; Arteaga v.
    Brink’s, Inc. (2008) 
    163 Cal.App.4th 327
    , 353 [“the temporal
    proximity between an employee’s disclosure of his symptoms and
    a subsequent termination may satisfy the causation requirement
    at the first step of the burden-shifting process”].)
    MPA contends that even if Leyva showed a prima facie case
    of associational discrimination, he has not shown MPA’s
    proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for the
    termination (Leyva’s insubordination) was pretext for
    discriminatory animus. Leyva argues he has raised a triable
    23
    issue of pretext11 based on Castillo’s singling Leyva out for
    reassignment on the same day Castillo approved Leyva’s third
    emergency request for time off to care for his father (the day
    before MPA terminated Leyva), Leyva’s testimony he was
    working as usual on the day of his termination when he was led
    out of the building by security at Castillo’s order, and the MPA
    decision makers’ differing accounts as to whether Leyva resigned
    or was fired. Leyva has the better argument.
    MPA argues Leyva’s testimony that Castillo was visibly
    annoyed and angry each time Leyva requested emergency time
    off to care for his father does not create a triable issue of fact with
    respect to pretext because Leyva’s statements as to Castillo’s
    state of mind are speculative. Leyva testified Castillo looked
    angry and turned his back on Leyva while Leyva was still
    speaking. This testimony describing how Castillo looked when
    Leyva made a time off request was admissible as a lay opinion to
    show Castillo was angered by Leyva’s requests. (See People v.
    Seumanu (2015) 
    61 Cal.4th 1293
    , 1309-1311 [percipient witness’s
    testimony his cellmate “remained silent and did not appear
    angry” when asked to take blame for defendant’s crimes was
    proper lay opinion evidence]; People v. DeHoyos (2013) 
    57 Cal.4th 79
    , 130 [“A lay witness generally may not give an opinion about
    11    Because we conclude Leyva raised a triable issue of fact
    whether MPA’s proffered reason for terminating him was pretext,
    we do not reach Leyva’s argument under D’Amico, supra,
    
    11 Cal.3d 1
     that the trial court erred in disregarding Leyva’s
    direct evidence of discriminatory animus—Leyva’s deposition
    testimony that the day before his termination Castillo told him
    that Castillo might have him fired for taking time off—because it
    was inconsistent with Leyva’s prior deposition testimony.
    24
    another person’s state of mind, but may testify about objective
    behavior and describe behavior as being consistent with a state of
    mind.”]; Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix (1990) 
    224 Cal.App.3d 104
    ,
    113 [“[A] lay witness may express an opinion that a person was
    ‘drunk’ [citation], or that people engaged in a discussion were
    ‘angry’ [citation], or that an impact was strong enough to jar a
    passenger from a seat [citation], or that someone appeared to be
    ‘trying to break up a fight.’”]; see also Evid. Code, § 800 [“If a
    witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of
    an opinion is limited to such an opinion as is permitted by law,
    including but not limited to an opinion that is: (a) Rationally
    based on the perception of the witness; and (b) Helpful to a clear
    understanding of his testimony.”].) Thus, a reasonable jury could
    find from Leyva’s testimony that Leyva’s emergency time off
    requests angered Castillo.
    Leyva’s evidence that Castillo singled Leyva out among
    MPA’s packing department closers for reassignment the day
    before Leyva’s termination further supports Leyva’s position
    Castillo viewed Leyva’s time off needs as a burden. Although
    Castillo testified he had requested at least two other closers to
    change tasks in or around February 2017, Palafox, who was the
    only lead closer in the packing department, testified he had never
    seen Castillo ask any of the closers who reported to Palafox to
    work or train in a different department. Further, Castillo
    testified he had no particular reason for choosing Leyva for the
    reassignment instead of another employee. Thus, there is a
    triable issue of fact whether Castillo’s request that Leyva change
    tasks was standard practice or targeted to provoke Leyva into
    giving Castillo a reason to terminate him for his time off
    requests. (See Castro-Ramirez, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 1043
    25
    [triable issue of pretext where supervisor “engineered a situation
    in which plaintiff would refuse to work the shift, giving [the
    supervisor] reason to terminate him”].)
    We reject MPA’s argument Castillo’s conduct is irrelevant
    because Schooner, not Castillo, made the ultimate decision to
    terminate Leyva. “[A] plaintiff ‘need not demonstrate that every
    individual who participated in the failure to hire [or terminate]
    him shared discriminatory animus.’ [Citation.] Rather, ‘showing
    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.’” (Abed v. Western Dental Services, Inc. (2018)
    
    23 Cal.App.5th 726
    , 743 [supervisor’s discriminatory animus
    could be imputed to employer where supervisor falsely told
    plaintiff that employer had no job openings, and supervisor was
    involved in hiring process, although she had no hiring authority];
    accord, Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 
    50 Cal.4th 512
    , 542 [“‘If [the
    formal decision maker] acted as the conduit of [an employee’s]
    prejudice—his cat’s paw—the innocence of [the decision maker]
    would not spare the company from liability.’”]; Cornell v. Berkeley
    Tennis Club (2017) 
    18 Cal.App.5th 908
    , 937 [animus of private
    club’s general manager toward plaintiff was properly imputed to
    employer where manager discussed events precipitating
    termination with decision makers and was present at plaintiff’s
    termination]; Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004)
    
    121 Cal.App.4th 95
    , 100, 113 [reversing summary judgment for
    employer where evidence raised triable issues of fact whether
    decision maker’s action was induced by retaliatory motives of
    intermediate managers].)
    26
    Leyva presented evidence from which a trier of fact
    reasonably could infer Castillo influenced MPA’s decision to
    terminate Leyva. Castillo directly participated in the decision to
    terminate Leyva in several ways. Castillo, not Schooner, ordered
    security to remove Leyva from his workstation the day Leyva was
    terminated. And on the same day Castillo conferred with
    Schooner by phone regarding the termination decision, then
    participated in the meeting with Schooner, Ramirez, Rivero, and
    Leyva. Further, Castillo, not Schooner, signed the termination
    notice MPA issued to Leyva. In addition, defendants admitted in
    response to a form interrogatory that Castillo provided
    information relied upon in the termination decision. And
    Schooner denied ordering Leyva be fired.
    MPA’s contention that Leyva forfeited this argument by
    failing to raise the “cat’s paw doctrine” in the trial court lacks
    merit. Although Leyva did not use the words “cat’s paw” below,
    he adequately argued and submitted evidence Castillo harbored
    discriminatory animus and influenced MPA’s termination
    decision.
    Finally, the parties dispute the events of February 28,
    2017, the day on which MPA terminated Leyva. Leyva testified
    he reported to work at around 6:00 a.m. that day as scheduled
    and performed packing and shipping work for about an hour
    before Galvan removed him from the worksite at Castillo’s order.
    MPA’s witnesses testified Leyva was taken to another
    department to train in newly assigned duties, but Leyva refused
    to work and was therefore ejected from the worksite. If the jury
    were to believe Leyva’s version of events that he was not
    insubordinate in refusing to work on February 28, that would
    27
    tend to show MPA’s proffered reason for terminating Leyva was
    pretextual.
    Considering Leyva’s evidence of pretext together with the
    close temporal proximity between Leyva’s use of time off to care
    for his father and MPA’s termination of his employment on the
    day after he submitted his third time off request for approval,
    Leyva has raised a triable issue of fact whether MPA’s proffered
    reason for terminating him was pretext for disability-based
    associational discrimination under FEHA. Accordingly, we
    reverse the trial court’s order granting summary adjudication of
    Leyva’s FEHA discrimination claim.12
    C.    Leyva Raised a Triable Issue of Fact as to His CFRA
    Interference Claim
    CFRA “‘is intended to give employees an opportunity to
    take leave from work for certain personal or family medical
    reasons without jeopardizing job security.’” (Soria, supra,
    5 Cal.App.5th at p. 600; accord, Moore v. Regents of University of
    California (2016) 
    248 Cal.App.4th 216
    , 233.) CFRA provides that
    a qualified employee of an employer with five or more employees
    may take up to 12 weeks of family care and medical leave in any
    12-month period. (§ 12945.2, subds. (a), (b)(3)(A).)
    12     Because we conclude the motion for summary judgment
    was not properly granted, we analyze each cause of action
    separately with respect to defendants’ motion for summary
    adjudication. Defendants concede Leyva’s second cause of action
    for failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation under FEHA
    survives summary adjudication if there is a triable issue of fact
    as to Leyva’s underlying FEHA associational discrimination
    claim. There is.
    28
    Under CFRA, it is “an unlawful employment practice for an
    employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or
    the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this section.”
    (§ 12945.2, subd. (q); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11094, subd. (b).)
    “A CFRA interference claim ‘“consists of the following elements:
    (1) the employee’s entitlement to CFRA leave rights; and (2) the
    employer’s interference with or denial of those rights.”’” (Soria,
    supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 601; accord, Moore v. Regents of
    University of California, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 250.) “An
    interference claim under CFRA does not invoke the burden
    shifting analysis of the McDonnell Douglas test.” (Moore, at
    p. 250; accord, Faust v. California Portland Cement Co. (2007)
    
    150 Cal.App.4th 864
    , 879.) Under regulations promulgated
    pursuant to CFRA, “Any violation of CFRA or these
    implementing regulations constitutes interfering with,
    restraining, or denying the exercise of rights provided by CFRA.”
    (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11094, subd. (a).)
    “Employers subject to the CFRA are required to provide
    notice to their employees of the right to request CFRA [leave].”
    (Faust v. California Portland Cement Co., supra, 150 Cal.App.4th
    at p. 879; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11095 [“Every employer
    covered by the CFRA . . . is required to post and keep posted on
    its premises, in conspicuous places where employees are
    employed, a notice explaining the Act’s provisions . . . .”].)
    “‘Under all circumstances, it is the employer’s responsibility to
    designate leave, paid or unpaid, as CFRA or CFRA/FMLA
    qualifying, based on information provided by the employee . . . ,
    and to give notice of the designation to the employee.’” (Soria,
    supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at pp. 602-603, quoting Cal. Code Regs.,
    tit. 2, § 11091, subd. (a)(1)(A).) “‘Whether notice is sufficient
    29
    under CFRA is a question of fact.’” (Soria, at p. 603; accord,
    Bareno v. San Diego Community College Dist., supra,
    7 Cal.App.5th at p. 565.)
    The CFRA regulations provide further, “Upon granting the
    CFRA leave, the employer shall inform the employee of its
    guarantee to reinstate the employee to the same or a comparable
    position, subject to the defenses permitted by section 11089(d),
    and shall provide the guarantee in writing upon request of the
    employee.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11089, subd. (a)(1).)
    Leyva asserts MPA interfered with his rights under CFRA
    by terminating him for his attempt to take CFRA-protected leave.
    MPA does not dispute Leyva was entitled to CFRA-protected
    leave to care for his father, but it contends Leyva failed to raise a
    triable issue of fact because Leyva declined to take protected
    leave and MPA approved Leyva’s vacation time off requests.
    Again, MPA’s argument lacks merit.
    MPA misapprehends the protections provided by CFRA.
    Under section 12945.2, subdivision (d), an employee taking
    CFRA-protected leave “may elect, or an employer may require the
    employee, to substitute, for leave allowed under subdivision (a),
    any of the employee’s accrued vacation leave or other accrued
    time off during this period or any other paid or unpaid time off
    negotiated with the employer.” Thus, MPA’s position (adopted by
    the trial court) embraces a false dichotomy in which Leyva was
    entitled to protected unpaid leave, but his use of accrued vacation
    time transformed his leave into unprotected paid leave. This is
    contrary to CFRA’s express authorization of use of accrued
    vacation time during a period of protected leave. Therefore,
    Leyva’s requests for time off to care for his disabled father were
    requests for protected leave irrespective of Levya’s election to use
    30
    accrued vacation time to be paid for the time off.13 Moreover,
    “‘[u]nder all circumstances, it is the employer’s responsibility to
    designate leave, paid or unpaid, as CFRA or CFRA/FMLA
    qualifying, based on information provided by the employee . . . ,
    and to give notice of the designation to the employee.’” (Soria,
    supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at pp. 602-603, quoting Cal. Code Regs.,
    tit. 2, § 11091, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Based on the information
    provided by Leyva—that he needed time off to care for his
    seriously ill father—MPA was required to designate the leave as
    CFRA-qualifying and give Leyva notice. Thus, a triable issue of
    fact exists whether MPA interfered with Leyva’s CFRA rights by
    failing to offer Leyva the option of paid CFRA-protected leave by
    using his accrued vacation time.
    Further, as discussed, Leyva has presented evidence
    raising a triable issue of fact whether MPA unlawfully
    discriminated against him by terminating him for association
    with his disabled father. If Leyva proves MPA acted with
    discriminatory animus in terminating his employment (for taking
    time off to care for his father), there is necessarily a question of
    fact whether Leyva was terminated for his use of protected leave.
    Likewise, if Leyva proves Castillo selected him for
    reassignment due to his use of family care leave with the intent
    to create a reason to terminate him, Leyva will have shown MPA
    interfered with his rights under CFRA. (See Cal. Code Regs.,
    13    Section 12945.2, subdivision (b)(5)(B), defines “‘[f]amily
    care and medical leave’” to include “[l]eave to care for a . . .
    parent . . . who has a serious health condition.” It is undisputed
    Leyva’s time off to care for his father was for a qualifying CFRA
    purpose.
    31
    tit. 2, § 11094, subd. (a)(1) [actionable interference includes an
    employer “[c]hanging the essential functions of the job in order to
    preclude the taking of leave”].) And it is actionable interference
    for an employer to “[t]erminat[e] an employee when it anticipates
    an otherwise eligible employee will be asking for a CFRA-
    qualifying leave in the future.” (Id., tit. 2, § 11094, subd. (a)(3);
    see id., subd. (b) [“CFRA’s prohibition against ‘interference’
    prohibits an employer from discriminating or retaliating against
    an employee or prospective employee for having exercised or
    attempted to exercise CFRA rights . . . .”].) For these reasons, the
    trial court erred in granting summary adjudication of Leyva’s
    CFRA interference claim.14
    D.    Leyva Raised a Triable Issue of Fact as to His Wrongful
    Termination Claim
    “The elements of a claim for wrongful discharge in violation
    of public policy are (1) an employer-employee relationship, (2) the
    employer terminated the plaintiff’s employment, (3) the
    termination was substantially motivated by a violation of public
    policy, and (4) the discharge caused the plaintiff harm.” (Yau v.
    Allen (2014) 
    229 Cal.App.4th 144
    , 154; accord, Haney v. Aramark
    Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 
    121 Cal.App.4th 623
    , 641.) “The
    14     Defendants are correct, however, that Leyva has forfeited
    any argument the trial court erred in granting summary
    adjudication of his cause of action for retaliation under CFRA by
    failing to raise it in his briefs on appeal. (Swain v. LaserAway
    Medical Group, Inc. (2020) 
    57 Cal.App.5th 59
    , 72 [“‘“‘Issues not
    raised in an appellant’s brief are [forfeited] or abandoned.’”’”];
    Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020)
    
    50 Cal.App.5th 467
    , 555 [same].)
    32
    central assertion of a claim of wrongful termination in violation
    of public policy is that the employer’s motives for terminating the
    employee are so contrary to fundamental norms that the
    termination inflicted an injury sounding in tort.” (Roby v.
    McKesson Corp. (2009) 
    47 Cal.4th 686
    , 702; see Tameny v.
    Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 
    27 Cal.3d 167
    , 176.) Protected
    conduct includes exercising a statutory right or privilege. (Yau,
    at p. 155.) As discussed, Leyva raised a triable issue on his
    claims MPA violated FEHA and CFRA in terminating him.
    Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication of
    Leyva’s wrongful termination claim.
    E.     Leyva Raised a Triable Issue of Fact as to His Intentional
    Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim
    “A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional
    distress exists when there is ‘“‘“(1) extreme and outrageous
    conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or
    reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional
    distress; (2) the plaintiffs’ suffering severe or extreme emotional
    distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional
    distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.”’”’ [Citations.] A
    defendants’ conduct is ‘outrageous’ when it is so ‘“‘extreme as to
    exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized
    community.’”’ [Citation.] And the defendant’s conduct must be
    ‘“‘intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that
    injury will result.’”’” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 
    46 Cal.4th 1035
    ,
    1050-1051, quoting Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993)
    
    6 Cal.4th 965
    , 1001; accord, Christensen v. Superior Court (1991)
    
    54 Cal.3d 868
    , 903.) “‘[B]ehavior may be considered outrageous if
    a defendant . . . abuses a relation or position which gives him
    33
    power to damage the plaintiff’s interest . . . .’” (Smith v. BP
    Lubricants USA Inc. (2021) 
    64 Cal.App.5th 138
    , 147; accord,
    Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 932
    , 946, disapproved on
    other grounds by White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 
    21 Cal.4th 563
    ,
    574 fn. 4.) “[W]hether conduct is outrageous is ‘“usually” a
    question of fact.’” (Smith, at p. 148; accord, Barker v. Fox &
    Associates (2015) 
    240 Cal.App.4th 333
    , 356.)
    As defendants concede, the viability of Leyva’s intentional
    infliction of emotional distress claim depends on whether Leyva
    has raised a triable issue of fact that Castillo and MPA
    intentionally discriminated against him or interfered with his
    CFRA rights. Liberally construing the evidence in support of
    Leyva and resolving doubts concerning the evidence in his favor,
    as we must, a reasonable jury could find Castillo intentionally
    abused his position as Leyva’s supervisor, which gave him power
    to damage Leyva’s interest in continued employment with MPA.
    Thus, Leyva raised a triable issue of fact whether Castillo’s
    conduct was extreme and outrageous, and the trial court erred in
    granting summary adjudication of Leyva’s intentional infliction
    of emotional distress claim.
    F.    Leyva Raised a Triable Issue of Fact as to His Punitive
    Damages Claim
    “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising
    from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing
    evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud,
    or malice, the plaintiff . . . may recover damages for the sake of
    example and by way of punishing the defendant.” (Civ. Code,
    § 3294, subd. (a).) Malice is “conduct which is intended by the
    defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct
    34
    which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious
    disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (Id., subd. (c)(1).)
    Oppression is “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel
    and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s
    rights.” (Id., subd. (c)(2).)
    Defendants moved for summary adjudication of Leyva’s
    punitive damages claim based on the lack of evidence Castillo or
    Schooner engaged in, authorized, or ratified any act of fraud,
    oppression, or malice. In his opposition brief, Leyva argued he
    raised triable issues whether Castillo’s and Schooner’s conduct
    could support an award of punitive damages. The trial court
    ruled the issue was moot based on its other rulings.
    On appeal, Leyva argues summary adjudication of his
    punitive damages claim was error, contending his claim may be
    premised on his FEHA, CFRA, and wrongful termination claims.
    Defendants renew their argument Leyva lacks evidence Castillo’s
    or Schooner’s conduct constituted oppression or malice.15 Again,
    Leyva has the better argument.
    15       Defendants also argue for the first time on appeal Leyva
    lacks evidence Castillo or Schooner was an officer, director, or
    managing agent of MPA. Because defendants failed to make this
    argument in the trial court, they have forfeited the contention.
    (Pittman v. Beck Park Apartments Ltd. (2018) 
    20 Cal.App.5th 1009
    , 1026 [an argument “‘“‘may be forfeited in criminal as well
    as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right
    before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine
    it’”’”]; Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017)
    
    8 Cal.App.5th 958
    , 972 [“‘“[I]t is fundamental that a reviewing
    court will ordinarily not consider claims made for the first time
    on appeal which could have been but were not presented to the
    trial court.”’”].)
    35
    A reasonable jury could conclude Castillo and MPA
    intentionally discriminated against Leyva by terminating him for
    taking time off to care for his disabled father, but they attempted
    to hide the illegal reason for their decision with a false
    explanation, thus denying Leyva of his protected rights under
    FEHA and CFRA. (See Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group (2021) 
    63 Cal.App.5th 82
    , 98 [“Evidence that an employer offered a
    pretextual explanation to justify its wrongful termination may
    support a finding of malice or oppression.”]; Cloud v. Casey (1999)
    
    76 Cal.App.4th 895
    , 912 [“Evidence that the decision-maker
    attempted to hide the improper basis with a false explanation . . .
    supports the jury’s determination that the conduct was willful
    and in conscious disregard of [employee’s] rights.”].) Scott v.
    Phoenix Schools, Inc. (2009) 
    175 Cal.App.4th 702
    , relied on by
    defendants, is distinguishable. There, the employer admitted it
    had terminated the director of a preschool for informing the
    parents of a prospective student that the school had no room for
    their child. The jury awarded punitive damages, finding the
    reason for the termination violated the public policy of protecting
    children by maintaining required staffing ratios. (Scott, at
    pp. 714-715.) The Court of Appeal reversed the punitive damages
    award, reasoning that terminating an employee for an improper
    reason without more does not support a finding of despicable
    conduct. (Id. at p. 716.) In contrast, as discussed, Leyva raised a
    triable issue of fact whether MPA’s proffered legitimate reason
    for Leyva’s termination was pretext. A jury could reasonably find
    that defendants’ discriminatory conduct was deceitful and
    therefore malicious or oppressive. Thus, the trial court erred in
    granting summary adjudication of Leyva’s claim for punitive
    damages.
    36
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The
    trial court is ordered to vacate its order granting defendants’
    motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting
    summary adjudication as to Leyva’s fourth cause of action for
    CFRA retaliation and denying summary adjudication as to
    Leyva’s remaining causes of action. The matter is remanded for
    further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Leyva is
    entitled to recover his costs on appeal.
    FEUER, J.
    We concur:
    SEGAL, Acting P. J.
    ESCALANTE, J. *
    *     Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
    Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
    Constitution.
    37