AUTHOR*
Anthony J.
Oncidi
Martin v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State Univ., 2023 WL 7537694 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Following the termination of his employment as director of university communications at California State University Northridge's (CSUN) Marketing and Communications Department, Jorge Martin sued the university for gender, race, color, and sexual orientation harassment and discrimination he alleged occurred because he is a "middle-aged, light-skinned, Mexican-American, heterosexual, and cisgender male."
The trial court granted the university's motion for summary judgment after concluding that Martin could not demonstrate he was performing competently, or that discriminatory animus could be inferred. It also noted that the university submitted unrebutted evidence that Martin was terminated for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that he failed to rebut.
The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment, finding that that the publication of articles mentioning harassment claims in CSUN's student newspaper and the university's reaction to those articles—the crux of one of Martin's claims of alleged wrongdoing—did not constitute harassment for purposes of his complaint. It also found the results of various investigations regarding Martin's conduct undertaken during his employment were a legitimate basis to terminate him.
Both the trial and appellate courts rejected Martin's argument that the university's reasons for terminating him were pretextual, declining to adopt his assertion that its commitment to diversity was evidence of pretext against him. The court here also declined to apply the "cat's paw"1 theory of liability—which requires that "a significant participant in an employment decision exhibited discriminatory animus."
Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Inc., 2023 WL 7014096 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Steve Snoeck prevailed on one of six claims filed against his former employer, ExakTime Innovations. The jury awarded $130,088 in damages on the claim that ExakTime had breached the Fair Employment and Housing Act2 by failing to engage in an interactive process with him. Snoeck was awarded $1.14 million in attorney's fees—an amount the trial court reduced by a "0.4 negative multiplier" to account for Snoeck's attorney's "lack of civility throughout the entire course of this litigation."
The court of...
