Babot v. Equilon Enterprises LLC DBA Shell Oil Products US

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 8, 2020
• Docket: 4:18-cv-04802
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHEILA BABOT, Case No. 18-cv-04802-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION 9 v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10 EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 51 11 Defendant.

12 Plaintiff Sheila Babot filed a complaint against her former employer, Defendant Equilon 13 Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US (“Shell”), alleging claims under the California Fair 14 Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California Government Code section 12940 et seq., for 15 employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, as well as related state law claims. Shell 16 filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, partial summary judgment. [Docket 17 No. 51.] The court held a hearing on the motion on February 13, 2020. [Docket No. 79.] For the 18 following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Babot was employed by Shell at its Martinez refinery as a probationary refinery process 21 operator from January 4, 2016 until her termination on October 27, 2016. According to Babot, 22 Rick Duff, a fellow operator, sexually harassed her and subjected her and others to sexist, 23 inappropriate comments and behavior throughout her employment. She further contends that she 24 reported Duff’s behavior to her supervisors on several occasions, but that they took no action in 25 response and Duff’s behavior continued. Babot alleges that her supervisors retaliated against her 26 for her complaints about Duff by excessively scrutinizing her work, blaming her for mistakes by 27 others, and making negative entries in her employee file. Within weeks of her final complaint 1 sex and/or gender in violation of FEHA, California Government Code section 12940(j); 2) failure 2 to prevent harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA, California Government Code 3 section 12940(k); 3) sex discrimination in violation of FEHA, California Government Code 4 section 12940(a); 4) retaliation in violation of FEHA, California Government Code section 5 12940(h); 5) whistleblower retaliation in violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5; 6) 6 wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and 7) intentional infliction of emotional 7 distress. 8 II. OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 9 Shell argues that the court should disregard certain deposition testimony and statements by 10 Babot in her declaration that she filed in support of her opposition to Shell’s motion. Shell raised 11 this argument for the first time on reply. At the hearing, the court permitted Babot to submit 12 further citations to her deposition testimony in support of her position. [See Docket No. 79 13 (Minute Order).] Babot timely filed the additional citations to evidence. [Docket No. 80.] 14 A. Complaints about Rick Duff 15 Shell first asks the court to disregard Babot’s deposition testimony and statements in her 16 declaration about her complaints to Shell of “unlawful conduct” by Duff. Shell contends that 17 Babot did not disclose the information in response to written discovery. Specifically, Shell’s 18 interrogatory no. 10 asked Babot to identify all complaints she made regarding unlawful conduct 19 and to provide details about the complaints, as follows:

20 Identify all complaints you made to Defendant regarding any of the unlawful conduct alleged in your Complaint, and separately identify 21 for each such complaint the date you made the complaint, the name of the person you made the complaint to and the manner in which you 22 made the complaint (e.g., in-person, by telephone, by email, etc.) 23 [Docket No. 53 (Chun Decl., Oct. 10, 2019) ¶ 4, Ex. C.] 24 Babot served the following response to interrogatory no. 10:

25 During her employment, Ms. Babot’s supervisors and co-workers observed and witnessed the sexist, demeaning, and hostile work 26 environment to which she was subjected at Shell. Throughout the summer of 2016, Elzen Wilson was Ms. Babot’s supervisor. Mr. 27 Wilson observed Mr. Duff’s inappropriate behavior toward women this issue when she asked Mr. Wilson why Mr. Duff was able to set 1 the tone and treat women the way he does. Mr. Wilson responded that he didn’t know, but that his hands were tied and he could not do 2 anything about it. Nothing was ever done to correct the hostile work environment and it continued throughout Ms. Babot’s employment 3 with Shell.

4 Discovery is continuing. There may be more information.

5 Id. Her response is dated December 13, 2018. Babot did not amend or supplement this response. 6 Shell deposed Babot in April 2019 and September 2019. At her April 2019 deposition, Babot 7 testified that she made additional complaints about Duff’s conduct to her supervisors, including 8 complaints to Wilson in April or May 2016 and to Allan “Buster” Metcalf in July 2016 and 9 August 2016. Chun Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A (Pl.’s Dep.) 41, 51-53, 62-63. She described these 10 complaints, as well as her mid-October 2016 complaint, in her declaration in support of her 11 opposition to the present motion. [Docket No. 63 (Babot Decl., Oct. 24, 2019) ¶¶ 39, 57, 64, 71.] 12 In its reply brief, Shell objects to this testimony, arguing that it contradicts Babot’s prior 13 interrogatory response which only identified her October 2016 complaint to Wilson about Duff. 14 Reply 8-9. Shell asks the court to disregard evidence of any complaints that Babot made about 15 Duff other than the complaint she identified in the interrogatory response, citing School District 16 No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1264 (9th Cir. 1993). 17 School District IJ was brought by a school district against manufacturers and installers of 18 asbestos products. The school district responded to an interrogatory requesting a school-by- 19 school, building-by-building breakdown listing specific asbestos products that had been installed, 20 as well as other information. Id. at 1260. OCF, a defendant manufacturer, moved for summary 21 judgment as to certain schools that the school district had not identified in its interrogatory 22 response. Id. at 1263. In opposing the motion, the school district argued that OCF-manufactured 23 asbestos was in the schools despite its failure to identify them in its interrogatory response, and 24 submitted the declaration of Robert Kramer, an asbestos worker who recalled installing the OCF’s 25 product in one of the schools. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary 26 judgment, finding that Kramer’s declaration did not create a genuine factual dispute: 27 response which was based on the School District’s examination of 1 applicable contract documents. Kramer’s testimony is emasculated by the School District’s clear interrogatory response directly to the 2 contrary. His affidavit, therefore, does not pass the “significantly probative” test of Liberty Lobby. No reasonable juror could rely upon 3 it to conclude that OCF asbestos was installed at the Edwards school. Thus, there is no genuine issue for trial on this issue and summary 4 judgment in favor of OCF with regards to the Edwards school was proper. 5 Id. at 1264 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). 6 This case is distinguishable from School District IJ because Babot’s sworn statements 7 regarding complaints she made to supervisors about Duff’s conduct do not contradict her response 8 to interrogatory no. 10. That response was served early in discovery and contained the statement, 9 “Discovery is continuing. There may be more information.” This left open the possibility of 10 additional responsive information. A jury can determine whether Babot’s credibility is 11 undermined by the fact that her interrogatory response was incomplete at the time she served it. 12 Moreover, Babot testified about the additional complaints at her deposition, and Shell was on 13 notice of this information in April 2019, which was well before discovery closed in September 14 2019. For this reason, Babot was not required to supplement her response to interrogatory no. 10. 15 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1), a party responding to discovery has a duty to 16 supplement a discovery response in a timely manner if he or she later learns that “in some material 17 respect the . . . response is incomplete or incorrect.” This duty to supplement does not apply when 18 the “additional or corrective information” was “otherwise . . . made known to the other parties 19 during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). Shell’s objections to 20 Babot’s testimony and statements in her declaration regarding her complaints to her supervisors 21 about Duff subject are therefore overruled. 22 B. Incidents of Harassment 23 Shell objects to portions of Babot’s declaration, claiming that it contradicts her deposition 24 testimony. Shell argues that when asked at deposition to identify all instances of sexual 25 harassment or inappropriate behavior that she experienced or witnessed, Babot identified six 26 specific incidents. Mot. 12-13. However, in her declaration, Babot describes at least eight 27 additional incidents of harassing and/or inappropriate conduct or statements by Duff. Reply 14 1 n.7; see, e.g., Babot Decl. ¶¶ 17, 24-30, 51, 54. Shell argues that the court should invoke the sham 2 affidavit rule and disregard Babot’s statements about any incidents of harassment or inappropriate 3 behavior that she did not identify at her deposition. 4 The sham affidavit rule “prevents ‘a party who has been examined at length on deposition’ 5 from ‘rais[ing] an issue of fact simply by submitting an affidavit contradicting his own prior 6 testimony[.]” Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit has held 7 that the rule “‘should be applied with caution’ because it is in tension with the principle that the 8 court is not to make credibility determinations when granting or denying summary judgment.” Id. 9 The party opposing summary judgment “is not precluded from elaborating upon, explaining or 10 clarifying prior testimony elicited by opposing counsel on deposition and minor inconsistencies 11 that result from an honest discrepancy, a mistake, or newly discovered evidence afford no basis for 12 excluding an opposition affidavit.” Id. at 1081 (quoting Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 13 989, 999 (9th Cir. 2009)). “[T]he district court must make a factual determination that the 14 contradiction is a sham, and the ‘inconsistency between a party’s deposition testimony and 15 subsequent affidavit must be clear and unambiguous to justify striking the affidavit.’” Id. at 1080. 16 The court has carefully reviewed Babot’s declaration as well as the deposition citations 17 that she provided. Her responses to questions posed at her deposition indicate that Duff’s alleged 18 problematic behaviors were numerous and pervasive. Thus, she testified that 1) there were “so 19 many” comments by Duff that were “sexual in nature” and “inappropriate” that it was hard to list 20 them, Pl.’s Dep. 26-27; 2) Duff “would just make jokes all the time, sexual in nature, just 21 inappropriate,” id. at 38-39; 3) Duff made comments directly to her before turnaround started, and 22 that after the turnaround, she overheard Duff’s comments and “announcement[s]” to other people 23 that were “sexual in nature,” id. at 45-49; 4) Duff made references to his penis “all the time,” id. at 24 303-05, 350; and that 5) Duff used an obscenity to refer to a woman’s body part “all the time,” id. 25 at 352. Babot also testified that Duff “never stopped doing anything,” referring to inappropriate 26 conduct, id. at 337, and that even after he stopped “badgering” her, he was “badgering other 27 people,” id. at 339. Babot’s declaration elaborates upon, explains, and clarifies this deposition 1 “repeatedly made comments about his penis and referred to it as ‘schlong,’” “made frequent 2 comments about the size of his penis,” and “made physical gestures toward his crotch.” Babot 3 Decl. ¶¶ 24-26. She also states that Duff used obscenities to refer to body parts “during every shift 4 that [she] worked with him” and provides examples of such obscenities. Id. at ¶ 27. Babot also 5 goes into detail in her declaration about comments she overheard Duff make to others, including 6 comments about “female employees’ appearances.” Id. at ¶¶ 28, 29, 50, 54.1 7 The court concludes that there are no “clear and unambiguous” inconsistencies between 8 Babot’s deposition testimony and declaration. Accordingly, there is no basis to exclude portions 9 of Babot’s declaration regarding specific incidents of inappropriate conduct by Duff. Shell’s 10 objections are overruled.2 11 III. LEGAL STANDARD 12 A court shall grant summary judgment “if . . . there is no genuine dispute as to any material 13 fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The burden 14 of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party, see 15 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986), and the court must view the evidence in the 16 light most favorable to the non-movant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 17 (1986) (citation omitted). A genuine factual issue exists if, taking into account the burdens of 18 production and proof that would be required at trial, sufficient evidence favors the non-movant 19 such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in that party’s favor. Id. at 248. The court may 20 not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or resolve issues of fact. See id. at 249. 21 To defeat summary judgment once the moving part has met its burden, the nonmoving 22 party may not simply rely on the pleadings, but must produce significant probative evidence, by 23 affidavit or as otherwise provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, supporting the claim that 24 1 The deposition transcript reveals that defense counsel twice cut off Babot or stopped her from 25 testifying about inappropriate statements Duff allegedly made to others. See Pl.’s Dep. 45, 47.

26 2 The parties’ remaining objections to evidence are denied as moot, as the court did not rely on the disputed evidence in reaching its decision. The court also notes that each side’s submission of 27 evidentiary objections in separate filings violates Local Rule 7-3(a) and (c), which provide that 1 a genuine issue of material fact exists. TW Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 2 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). In other words, there must exist more than “a scintilla of evidence” 3 to support the non-moving party’s claims, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252; conclusory assertions will 4 not suffice. See Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). Similarly, 5 “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the 6 record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the 7 facts” when ruling on the motion. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). 8 IV. ANALYSIS 9 The existence of a single genuine dispute of material fact as to any claim precludes 10 summary judgment. In the interest of efficiency, this order does not set forth every genuine 11 dispute of material fact for each claim. 12 A. Harassment Based on Sex and Failure to Prevent Harassment 13 FEHA makes it unlawful to harass an employee because of the employee’s sex. Cal. Gov’t 14 Code § 12940(j)(1). The elements of a FEHA harassment claim are: “(1) the plaintiff belongs to a 15 protected group; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome harassment because of being a 16 member of that group; and (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the 17 conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.” Landucci v. State Farm 18 Ins. Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 694, 703 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citation omitted). 19 Before suing for violation of FEHA, a plaintiff must file an administrative complaint with 20 the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) within “‘one year from the date upon 21 which the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred,’ barring exceptions related to 22 delayed discovery.” Gardner v. City of Berkeley, 838 F. Supp. 2d 910, 917-18 (N.D. Cal. 2012) 23 (citing Cal. Govt. Code § 12960(d) (2017)). Shell moves for summary judgment on this claim on 24 the grounds that the claim is time-barred because Babot filed her administrative complaint with the 25 DFEH on October 18, 2017, and that she was not subjected to any harassing conduct by Duff 26 during the one-year period leading up to that complaint (i.e., October 18, 2016 to October 18, 27 2017). It also argues that Babot cannot establish that Shell knew or should have known of the 1 to Wilson in October 2016. 2 Summary judgment is denied as to Babot’s harassment claim. Under the continuing 3 violation doctrine, “an employer is liable for actions that take place outside the limitations period 4 if these actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct that occurred within the limitations 5 period.” Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal. 4th 1028, 1056 (2005); see also Gardner, 838 F. 6 Supp. 2d at 918 (“[A] continuing violation may exist where there is . . . a series of related acts 7 against a single individual.”). The doctrine applies when an employer’s unlawful acts 1) are 8 sufficiently similar in kind; 2) have occurred with reasonable frequency; and 3) have not acquired 9 a degree of permanence. Yanowitz, 36 Cal. 4th at 1059. In this case, absent the application of the 10 continuing violation doctrine, Babot’s claims concerning events occurring prior to October 18, 11 2016, one year before her DFEH complaint, would be barred. However, Babot’s testimony that 12 Duff engaged in harassing conduct throughout her employment establishes a dispute of fact as to 13 whether the harassment occurred with reasonable frequency and did not acquire a degree of 14 permanence until she was terminated, and thus a dispute of fact exists as to whether her 15 harassment claim is timely under the continuing violation doctrine. See id. 16 Additionally, Babot’s testimony that she complained about Duff to her supervisors Wilson 17 and Metcalf in April or May 2016, July 2016, August 2016, and October 2016 establishes a 18 dispute of fact as to whether Shell knew or should have known of Duff’s conduct. An employer is 19 liable for harassment by a non-supervisory employee if the employer “knows or should have 20 known of [the harassing] conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.” 21 Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)(1); State Dep’t of Health Servs. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 4th 1026, 22 1041 (2003). Shell does not argue that Wilson and Metcalf’s alleged knowledge of Duff’s 23 conduct may not be imputed to Shell; it disputes only that Babot complained to them about Duff’s 24 alleged sexual harassment. See Reply 12-13. This constitutes a material dispute of fact. 25 The court also denies summary judgment as to Babot’s claim for failure to prevent 26 harassment in violation of FEHA. A plaintiff alleging a claim of failure to prevent harassment 27 must show that (1) she was subjected to harassment; (2) the defendant failed to take all reasonable 1 or harm. Lelaind v. City & Cty. Of San Francisco, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 2 Whether Shell took reasonable steps to prevent harassment is disputed given Babot’s testimony 3 that Duff’s conduct persisted even after she complained about him to her supervisors. 4 B. Sex Discrimination and Failure to Prevent Discrimination 5 To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that 1) she 6 is a member of a protected class; 2) she was performing competently in the position she held; 3) 7 she suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) some other circumstance suggests a 8 discriminatory motive. Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 354 (2000). Shell argues that 9 Babot cannot establish the fourth element of the prima facie case, because “there is no 10 circumstance suggesting that [Babot’s] termination had anything to do with her sex.” Mot. 15. 11 However, Babot presented evidence that male employees, including Keith Stephens, had 12 performance problems and were not disciplined and/or terminated. See, e.g., DEF 004617 (Lavora 13 noting that Stephens “has struggled with his performance in the few months of being an 14 operator”). Shell disputes whether Stephens is a proper comparator, but “whether two employees 15 are similarly situated is ordinarily a question of fact.” See Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 16 1151, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the court finds that Babot has 17 satisfied her “minimal” burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on sex. See 18 Coghlan v. Am. Seafoods Co. LLC, 413 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2005). 19 Shell presented evidence that Babot was terminated for performance problems. Lavora 20 Decl., Oct. 9, 2019, ¶ 12; Layne Decl., Oct. 10, 2019 ¶ 6. Accordingly, the burden shifts to Babot 21 to show that the asserted reasons for her termination were pretextual. Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 356. 22 The Ninth Circuit has explained that in the absence of direct evidence of discriminatory animus, 23 “the plaintiff may come forward with circumstantial evidence that tends to show that the 24 employer’s proffered motives were not the actual motives because they are inconsistent or 25 otherwise not believable.” Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998) 26 (analyzing FEHA sex discrimination claim). Babot presented evidence that on October 25, 2016, 27 two days before Babot’s termination, Lavora admitted that other employees, including at least one 1 See DEF 000150. Despite this, Lavora and Layne made the decision to terminate Babot and retain 2 Stephens. Given this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Babot was terminated 3 because she was a woman and not her performance issues. Accordingly, summary judgment is 4 denied as to Babot’s sex discrimination claim. For the same reasons, summary judgment is denied 5 as to Babot’s claim for failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA. See, e.g., Aparicio 6 v. Comcast, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 3d 1014, 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (denying motion for summary 7 judgment on claims for failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA where underlying race and 8 national origin discrimination claims survived summary judgment). 9 C. FEHA Retaliation, Whistleblower Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 10 “To state a prima facie case for retaliation, [a] plaintiff must establish: (1) she was engaged 11 in protected activity; (2) defendant took an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal 12 connection existed between plaintiff’s protected activity and defendant’s adverse employment 13 action.” Lelaind, 576 F. Supp. 2d at 1094. Shell moves for summary judgment on Babot’s FEHA 14 retaliation claim on the grounds that Babot did not engage in protected activity and that she cannot 15 establish a causal link between her alleged October 15, 2016 complaint to Wilson and her 16 termination. 17 Summary judgment is denied as to Babot’s claim for retaliation under FEHA. Babot’s 18 testimony that she complained about Duff to her supervisors on the four occasions described 19 above establishes a dispute of fact as to whether she engaged in protected activity. Further, the 20 October 25, 2016 note by Lavora that Babot had “an issue with Rick Duff” is sufficient to create a 21 dispute of fact as to whether there was a causal link between Babot’s complaints about Duff and 22 her October 27, 2016 termination. See Lavora Dep. Ex. 1 (DEF 000150-51). For the same 23 reasons, summary judgment is denied on Babot’s claim of whistleblower retaliation in violation of 24 California Labor Code section 1102.5 and claim for wrongful termination in violation of public 25 policy. 26 D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 27 “The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) 1 outrageous conduct by the defendant, (2) intention to cause or reckless disregard of the probability 2 of causing emotional distress, (3) severe emotional suffering, and (4) actual and proximate 3 causation of the emotional distress.” Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 4 617 (1989). 5 Summary judgment is denied as to Babot’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional 6 distress (“IIED”). Shell asserts that this claim “stands or falls” with Babot’s FEHA claims and 7 that there is no evidence of “extreme and outrageous” conduct by Shell. Def.’s Mot. 23. 8 However, “[g]iven an employee’s fundamental, civil right to a discrimination free work 9 environment, by its very nature, sexual harassment in the work place is outrageous conduct as it 10 exceeds all bounds of decency usually tolerated by a decent society.” Fisher, 214 Cal. App. 3d at 11 618 (internal citations omitted). As a reasonable jury could find in Babot’s favor on her sexual 12 harassment claim, summary judgment on the IIED claim is denied. See Maridon v. Comcast 13 Cable Comm’cns Mgmt., LLC, No. C-12-2109 EMC, 2014 WL 117103, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 14 2014) (treating IIED claim as “co-extensive” with plaintiff’s harassment claims and denying 15 summary judgment on both harassment and IIED claims). 16 E. Punitive Damages 17 Summary judgment is granted as to Babot’s claim for punitive damages. Babot seeks 18 punitive damages under California Civil Code section 3294(b). She argues that Shell is liable for 19 punitive damages because alleged managing agent Tom Rizzo ratified Lavora’s decision to 20 terminate her employment. See Pl.’s Opp’n 25. “Ratification is the confirmation and acceptance 21 of a previous act.” Cruz v. Homebase, 83 Cal. App. 4th 160, 168 (2000) (quotation and citation 22 omitted). “For purposes of determining an employer’s liability for punitive damages, ratification 23 generally occurs where, under the particular circumstances, the employer demonstrates an intent to 24 adopt or approve oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious behavior by an employee in the performance 25 of his job duties.” Coll. Hosp. Inc. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. 4th 704, 726 (1994). The California 26 Supreme Court has held that “[c]orporate ratification in the punitive damages context requires 27 actual knowledge of the conduct and its outrageous nature.” Id. This is because “[a] corporation 1 168. Here, Babot has not presented any evidence that Rizzo had actual knowledge of Duff’s 2 || alleged harassment and Babot’s supervisors’ alleged failure to address the ongoing harassment in 3 her unit. Accordingly, she has failed to show a dispute of material fact as to Rizzo’s ratification of 4 || the alleged wrongful conduct. Summary judgment is therefore granted as to Babot’s claim for 5 || punitive damages based on a ratification theory. 6 || V. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, Shell’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and 8 || denied in part. Summary judgment is granted as to Babot’s claim for punitive damages only. The 9 || July 15, 2020 case management conference is CONTINUED to September 30, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. 10 || updated case management statement is due by September 23, 2020. « 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Ly ON &) |} Dated: July 8, 2020 & 50 ORDERED | □□ = D pips) ys Bop □ hid sho Aberin | 2 P □□ os