Moinuddin v. State, Department of Transportation

SHEIK MOINUDDIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Defendant and Appellant.

B297674

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

June 23, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No BC656161, Barbara M. Scheper, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions.

Hennig Ruiz & Singh, Rob Hennig and Shoshee Jau Hui, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Erin E. Holbrook, Chief Counsel, Jerald M. Montoya, Deputy Chief Counsel, Razmig Khayalian, for Defendant and Appellant.

BAKER J.

Plaintiff Sheik Moinuddin (Moinuddin) was demoted from a managerial position at defendant California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and he unsuccessfully contested the demotion before the State Personnel Board (the Board)-without claiming the demotion had been motivated by unlawful discrimination or retaliation. Before the result of the Board proceedings was final, Moinuddin sued in court for violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He alleged his demotion was discriminatory and retaliatory (the issue he reserved raising before the Board), and he also complained about Caltrans' decisions to deny him other promotions and to remove an employee from his supervisory purview. A trial jury concluded Caltrans discriminated and retaliated against Moinuddin but awarded no damages because it found his poor job performance meant Caltrans would have taken the same actions absent the discriminatory and retaliatory motives. Though damages were unavailable, the trial court granted declaratory and injunctive relief and awarded attorney fees. We principally consider, in resolving the parties' cross-appeals, whether Moinuddin's choice to proceed before the Board precluded him from litigating his FEHA claims in court, whether the trial court erred by granting declaratory and injunctive relief, and whether there is substantial evidence Caltrans' adverse actions were partly motivated by legitimate reasons.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Moinuddin's Employment and Promotion

Moinuddin began working for Caltrans in January 1991. He started as a Transportation Engineer and was later promoted to Senior Transportation Engineer. In 2007, Moinuddin and seven other Caltrans employees signed a formal complaint letter accusing another employee, Sameer Haddadeen (Haddadeen), of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin. Haddadeen stopped speaking to Moinuddin after he signed the letter.

In or around 2014, Caltrans created the position of Principal Transportation Engineer in Operations (Principal TE). The person hired into the position would be on probation for a year, after which the assignment would become permanent. After a competitive application process, Moinuddin was promoted to the Principal TE position. As Principal TE, Moinuddin reported to Deputy District Director of Operations Ali Zaghari (Zaghari), who identifies as Persian-American. In his new position, Moinuddin would have supervisory responsibility over approximately 170 employees, including Haddadeen.

After Moinuddin was promoted, Haddadeen returned to work from a leave of absence, learned he would be reporting to Moinuddin, and asked Zaghari to allow him to report to Zaghari instead. Zaghari granted the request.

During Moinuddin's probationary year in the new position, Zaghari gave Moinuddin two performance reviews. Both identified areas in which Moinuddin's performance was unacceptable or needed improvement. According to Zaghari, Moinuddin was very upset when he received the first of these reviews.

In November 2015, Caltrans issued a Notice of Rejection During Probation that purported to remove Moinuddin from the Principal TE position during the probationary period, i.e., before his assignment became permanent. Caltrans later withdrew the Notice of Rejection, however, because it was untimely: Moinuddin's probationary period had already ended before the notice issued. Caltrans then issued a Notice of Adverse Action demoting Moinuddin to his previous position of Senior Transportation Engineer; a disciplinary adverse action, at that point, was the only way for Caltrans to return Moinuddin to his prior position.

After demoting Moinuddin, Zaghari contacted a number of individuals at Caltrans, looking for someone to temporarily step into Moinuddin's former position. Homar Noroozi (Noroozi), who also identifies as of Persian descent, was the only person who initially volunteered. He served for six months and was later appointed as Principal TE.

Moinuddin subsequently applied for Principal Transportation Engineer positions in Caltrans' Division of Design and Caltrans' Division of Project Management. He was not selected for either position.

B. The Administrative Action before the Board

Moinuddin appealed his demotion to the Board, claiming in the main that there was no evidence to support the disciplinary action and Caltrans did not properly follow principles of progressive discipline. Moinuddin deliberately chose not to allege in the administrative proceedings that his demotion had been motivated by unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

Moinuddin's administrative appeal was heard by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in November 2016. The ALJ, in a proposed decision, entered “conclusions of law” stating: “1. Moinuddin did not prove that there was no substantial evidence to support the demotion, or that the demotion was made in fraud or bad faith[;] 2. Moinuddin's conduct constitutes cause for discipline under Government Code section 19572 subdivisions (b) (incompetency), (c) inefficiency, (d) inexcusable neglect of duty, (e) insubordination, and (t) other failure of good behavior[;] 3. The demotion is appropriate.” In reaching these conclusions, the ALJ found Moinuddin had offered a promotion to an employee without obtaining clearance from the personnel office, did not draft duty statements for two positions, became argumentative with a supervisor, did not take detailed notes at a meeting as directed, did not ensure employees under his supervision submitted timesheets in a timely manner, did not facilitate a quarterly safety meeting for his staff, did not submit a monthly status report on the committees he attended each month, and did not provide a requested organizational chart. The ALJ's proposed decision also observes, in discussing why Caltrans could rely on poor job performance that occurred during Moinuddin's probationary period when later demoting him as a matter of discipline, that Moinuddin did not prove Caltrans “intended to deprive him of a benefit to which he was entitled or acted with animus.”^[1]

The Board adopted the ALJ's proposed decision in January 2017. Two months later, Moinuddin filed a verified petition for writ of mandate appealing the Board's determination sustaining his demotion.^[2] The trial court sustained Caltrans' demurrer to the petition in January 2018. Moinuddin appealed. This court affirmed the trial court's ruling in July 2019.

C. The FEHA Action Giving Rise to This Appeal

1. The complaint

While the administrative proceedings remained ongoing, Moinuddin filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and received a right to sue notice in October 2016.

The following April, Moinuddin filed a three-count civil complaint against Caltrans. All three causes of action alleged FEHA violations: one count alleging unlawful discrimination, one count alleging retaliation, and the third alleging failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The complaint's factual allegations paralleled, in several respects, the facts that had been at issue in the administrative proceeding, i.e., Moinuddin had been promoted to Principal TE, Haddadeen had been removed from Moinuddin's supervisory chain, Moinuddin had been reprimanded for various actions he performed while serving as Principal TE, and Moinuddin was ultimately demoted. The complaint further alleged Zaghari displayed favoritism towards employees of Persian/Iranian national origin and Moinuddin feared he had lost all opportunities for career advancement due to Zaghari's actions and the Caltrans work environment.

The discrimination cause of action alleged Caltrans subjected Moinuddin to differential treatment, ostracism, and demotion based on his national origin. The retaliation cause of action alleged Moinuddin had engaged in protected activities under FEHA (making a FEHA/Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint and associating with other Caltrans employees who had engaged in FEHA protected activity) and Caltrans retaliated by taking adverse employment actions: removing Haddadeen from his supervisory chain, demoting him, and denying him promotions. The final cause of action alleged Caltrans failed to take all steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace.

The complaint's prayer for relief sought restitution, general damages, and “all necessary and appropriate injunctive relief including reinstatement of [Moinuddin] to his former position as Principal Transportation Engineer and that Defendant Caltrans adhere to its legal obligations in providing a workplace free from retaliation.”

2. Caltrans' efforts to stay trial court proceedings until final resolution of the action to overturn the Board's decision

In March 2018, months before the FEHA case went to trial Caltrans filed an ex parteapplication to stay further FEHA proceedings pending our resolution of Moinuddin's appeal of the trial court's refusal to overturn the Board's decision against him. The trial court denied the application without prejudice to Caltrans filing a noticed motion. Caltrans subsequently filed a...