Don't miss Serri v. Santa Clara University opinion here. This case is a defense lawyer's summary judgment go-to. Of note, the court handled a number of claims that are rarely seen (such as defamation by self-compelled publication, intentional interference, and the Labor Code's equal pay law. Here are some of the highlights:
- Upholds denial of extension to file opposition to motion for summary judgment.
- Affirms summary judgment against discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination claims. Good analysis of the employee's burden of establishing "pretextual" reason for termination.
- Upholds summary judgment on a national origin harassment claim because the alleged comments were not severe or pervasive.
- Agrees that the trial court properly adjudicated the plaintiff's claim under the state Equal Pay Act (Labor Code section 1197.5). The court held the plaintiff did not establish the proper "comparators" to establish she was paid less than someone performing substantially equal work.
- Rare bird: Upholds summary judgment against the plaintiff's claim of breach of employment contract. The court held that the university had "good cause" to fire Serri as a matter of law.
- Affirmed summary judgment on the plaintiff's defamation claim, including "compelled self-defamation." The court held that all statements were true or privileged.
- Affirmed summary judgment on an intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim.
*****
Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics, opinion here is the Ninth Circuit's second pass on an independent contractor v. employee analysis for delivery drivers. The court reversed the district court and held that the delivery drivers were mis-classified: "Affinity retained absolute control over drivers’ rates, payment, routes, schedules, trucks, equipment, appearance, decision to hire helpers, choice of helpers, and the right to deal with customers." Thus, the court held, the most important factor under the Borello analysis—right to control—indicates overwhelmingly that the drivers were Affinity’s employees." Close case, right?
*****
Anderson v. City and County of San Francisco, opinion here, is another unusual case, testing out a "bona fide occupational qualification" defense under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. San Francisco's jail implemented a policy of prohibiting male guards from supervising female inmates. The Sheriff articulated four reasons: "(1) to protect the safety of female inmates from sexual misconduct perpetrated by male deputies, (2) to maintain the security of the jail in the face of female inmates’ ability to manipulate male deputies and of the deputies’ fear of false allegations of sexual misconduct by the inmates, (3) to protect the privacy of female inmates, and (4) to promote the successful
rehabilitation of female inmates." Guards sued, alleging they were denied promotional opportunities, overtime, and other harms because of the restriction. Reversing the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial on whether the policy violated Title VII. The Court explained that a BFOQ is narrow and requires the defendant employer to prove specific issues as an affirmative defense. Because the city failed to do that, the city was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The "common sense" assumption that females should be supervised by females to avoid sexual contact, invasions of privacy, etc. are not enough.
rehabilitation of female inmates." Guards sued, alleging they were denied promotional opportunities, overtime, and other harms because of the restriction. Reversing the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial on whether the policy violated Title VII. The Court explained that a BFOQ is narrow and requires the defendant employer to prove specific issues as an affirmative defense. Because the city failed to do that, the city was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The "common sense" assumption that females should be supervised by females to avoid sexual contact, invasions of privacy, etc. are not enough.
