Brown v. Cemex, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 10, 2024
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02128
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 BRIAN BROWN, No. 2:22-cv-02128 WBS DB 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 CEMEX, INC.; CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PACIFIC, LLC; and DOES 16 1 to 10, 17 Defendants. 18 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Plaintiff Brian Brown brings three claims under the 21 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et 22 seq., and two claims under California’s Fair Employment and 23 Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., all of 24 which relate to allegations that defendant CEMEX Construction 25 Materials Pacific, LLC1 (“Cemex”) refused to hire plaintiff 26 1 Plaintiff initially also sued CEMEX, Inc., which is the 27 parent corporation of CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC. The parties now agree that the parent entity is not a proper 28 1 because of his disability. (Compl. (Docket No. 1).) Defendant 2 now moves for summary judgment on all claims. (Mot. (Docket No. 3 25-1).) 4 As the parties are familiar with the relevant facts, 5 procedural history, and legal standard, the court will not recite 6 them in detail here. 7 I. Evidentiary Objections 8 The court first addresses the serial relevance, 9 foundation, and hearsay objections that defendant raises against 10 plaintiff’s witnesses’ declarations and accompanying documents. 11 (See Docket Nos. 37, 38.) 12 As a preliminary matter, the court will disregard any 13 objections that are duplicative of the summary judgment standard. 14 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is relevant if it 15 “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable” and that 16 fact “is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. 17 Evid. 401. The action before the court now is a motion for 18 summary judgment. On summary judgment, the court determines 19 whether the evidence presented, viewed in the light most 20 favorable to the non-moving party, creates a “genuine dispute as 21 to any material fact” that must be resolved at trial. Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 56(a). The court must therefore consider, and only 23 consider, evidence bearing on (1) facts that are (2) material. 24 If the evidence offered does not bear on a material fact (e.g., 25 comprises baseless speculation, bears on a legal conclusion, or 26

27 35 at 6.) Accordingly, the court will dismiss all claims as asserted against CEMEX, Inc. with prejudice. 28 1 bears on a fact not necessary to dispose of any claim), it is by 2 definition not relevant to the present action for summary 3 judgment. Sandoval v. Cnty. of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 665 (9th 4 Cir. 2021) (“[O]bjections for relevance are generally unnecessary 5 on summary judgment because they are “‘duplicative of the summary 6 judgment standard itself.’ . . . [P]arties briefing summary 7 judgment motions would be better served to ‘simply argue’ the 8 import of the facts reflected in the evidence rather than 9 expending time and resources compiling laundry lists of relevance 10 objections.”) (citing Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 433 F. 11 Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (Shubb, J.)). Additionally, 12 “if the contents of a document can be presented in a form that 13 would be admissible at trial -- for example, through live 14 testimony by the author of the document -- the mere fact that the 15 document itself might be excludable hearsay provides no basis for 16 refusing to consider it on summary judgment.” Id. at 666. 17 The court will therefore overrule defendant’s 18 relevance, foundation, and hearsay objections. Plaintiff’s, 19 Haymore’s, and Webdell’s declarations -- the declarations to 20 which defendant objects -- all state that the respective 21 declarant has personal knowledge of all of the facts comprising 22 his declaration and supporting documents included with it. 23 (Docket Nos. 35-8 ¶ 1; 35-7 ¶ 1; 35-15 ¶ 1.) There is therefore 24 no concern that this evidence cannot be presented in admissible 25 form at trial. This is especially true regarding plaintiff’s 26 notes recounting his own interview; the court can envision no 27 circumstances under which plaintiff would, as a legal matter, be 28 barred from offering his personal, percipient testimony about 1 what he said and heard during his interview were the case to 2 proceed to trial. Absent any challenges to the substantive 3 authenticity or reliability of these declarations or documents, 4 the court will not categorically exclude them from its analysis 5 of defendant’s motion because of the form in which they are 6 currently presented.2 7 II. Disability Discrimination Under ADA and FEHA (Claims 1-4) 8 Both parties agree that the McDonnell Douglas burden- 9 shifting framework for analyzing intentional discrimination 10 claims, first set forth by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas 11 Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), applies to plaintiff’s 12 disability discrimination claims brought under the ADA and FEHA. 13 (Mot. at 20-21 & n.5; Opp’n (Docket No. 35) at 4-5.) See Kannan 14 v. Apple, Inc., No. 20-17211, 2022 WL 3973918, at *1 (9th Cir. 15 Aug. 31, 2022) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework to ADA and 16 FEHA claims); Schechner v. KPIX–TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 17 2012) (“California applies the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting 18 framework and other federal employment law principles when 19 interpreting the FEHA.”). 20 This court has previously explained how the McDonnell 21 Douglas framework applies in the summary judgment context: “Under 22 [McDonnell Douglas], the plaintiff must first establish a prima 23 facie case, which requires the employee to show he or she (1) 24 suffered from a disability, (2) was otherwise qualified to do his 25

26 2 Defendant’s objections regarding plaintiff’s failure to provide the court with complete deposition transcripts are moot, 27 as all of the relevant transcripts have since been lodged in complete form with the court. (See Docket Nos. 24, 40.) 28 1 or her job, and (3) was subjected to adverse employment action 2 because of the disability. If the plaintiff establishes a prima 3 facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the 4 presumption by producing admissible evidence, sufficient to raise 5 a genuine issue of fact that its action was taken for a 6 legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. If the employer sustains 7 this burden, the presumption of discrimination disappears, and 8 the plaintiff must then show the employer’s proffered reasons as 9 pretexts for discrimination, or offer any other evidence of 10 discriminatory motive.” Thomsen v. Georgia-Pac. Corrugated, LLC, 11 190 F. Supp. 3d 959, 969 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citations and 12 quotations omitted). 13 Here, plaintiff fails to establish his prima facie case 14 because the court, in viewing the record in a light most 15 favorable to plaintiff, cannot find any evidence that suggests a 16 causal link between plaintiff’s disability and defendant’s 17 ultimate decision not to hire him. While “[t]he burden of 18 establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not 19 onerous,” plaintiff still needs to show that “[]he applied for an 20 available position for which []he was qualified, but was rejected 21 under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful 22 discrimination.” Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 23 248, 253, (1981)3; see also Phipps v. Gary Drilling Co., 722 F. 24 3 The Burdine Court further elaborates on the 25 significance of the prima facie case: “The prima facie case serves an important function in the litigation: it eliminates the 26 most common nondiscriminatory reasons for the plaintiff’s 27 rejection. [. . .] [T]he prima facie case raises an inference of discrimination only because we presume these acts, if 28 1 Supp. 615, 619 (E.D. Cal. 1989) (Coyle, J.) (“This initial 2 burden, however, is not an insubstantial one -- the prima facie 3 case must be supported by evidence that gives rise to an 4 inference of unlawful discrimination. Failure to produce 5 specific facts that establish the existence of a prima facie case 6 renders a grant of summary judgment appropriate. Mere assertions 7 of discriminatory motive and intent are inadequate. [. . .] In 8 other words, the evidence must be sufficient to identify actions 9 which, if unexplained, give rise to an inference of 10 discriminatory conduct.”) (citations and quotations omitted). 11 Plaintiff’s own account of the interview process, taken 12 at full face value, fails to provide any circumstantial evidence 13 even hinting at discriminatory intent. Plaintiff’s interview 14 notes, which postdate the actual interview by ten months, recount 15 the detailed answers that he alleges to have given in response to 16 the panel’s interview questions; directly challenge the veracity 17 of Ramirez’s contemporaneous notes on plaintiff’s answers; 18 express feeling positive about his prospects immediately 19 thereafter; and finally speculate that “I AM LEFT TO WONDER IF 20 THE FACT THAT I HAVE A DISABILITY AUTOMATICALLY PLACED ME IN THE 21 ‘TROUBLE MAKER’ CATEGORY. PERHAPS, CEMEX SIMPLY DID NOT WANT TO 22 DEAL WITH A PERSON WHO MAY REQUIRE ACCOMODATIONS IN THE WORK 23 PLACE.” (Docket No. 35-9 at 3.) However, plaintiff offers 24 nothing further to substantiate that suspicion. (Cf. Docket No. 25 25-3 at 45 (Q: “During the interview process with CEMEX INC., did 26

27 consideration of impermissible factors. Id. at 253-54 (citations and quotations omitted) (emphases added). 28 1 anyone in a hiring or management level position make any comment 2 to you, regardless of how seemingly insignificant, regarding your 3 disability and/or their impression of your ability to do your 4 job?” A: “NO”).) 5 Plaintiff also seems to suggest that his low score is 6 itself circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent: “The 7 fact [that defendant] gave [plaintiff] a low score in his 8 interview is not a cure-all for discrimination. It is the 9 discrimination.” (Opp’n at 9.) However, this not only begs the 10 question; it misstates the relevant law. Setting aside possible 11 subjective disagreements about how plaintiff performed, even the 12 employer’s own objectively incorrect application of its internal 13 process, is, without more, insufficient to establish the causal 14 element of a prima facie discrimination case. See Jantz v. 15 DeJoy, No. 222CV04702SVWRAO, 2023 WL 3555493 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 16 2023) (“[E]ven if Defendant had incorrectly applied its own 17 hiring standards or should have recognized that Plaintiff’s 18 degrees and trainings merited a score higher than 0[], Plaintiff 19 cannot simply show the employer’s decision was wrong, mistaken, 20 or unwise [to establish a prima facie case of discrimination].”) 21 (citations and quotations omitted) (emphases added); Weil v. 22 Citizens Telecom Servs. Co., LLC, 922 F.3d 993, 1003 (9th Cir. 23 2019) (“[T]he plaintiff still must produce evidence, not just 24 pleadings or argument. An employee’s self-assessment of his 25 performance, though relevant, is not enough on its own to raise a 26 genuine issue of material fact.”). 27 As a final resort, plaintiff presents discrepancies in 28 the record relating to whether Mr. Ramirez knew of plaintiff’s 1 disability prior to the interview as themselves evidencing 2 discriminatory intent. (See Opp’n at 10-11.) The discrepancies 3 do no such thing. First, an employer’s mere knowledge of an 4 employee’s disability does not, without more, establish a prima 5 facie case of discrimination.4 Second, defendant’s actual 6 knowledge of plaintiff’s disability during the interview process 7 is not in dispute -- neither party disputes that at least Mr. 8 Skulick, the Vice President of Operations for Cemex, knew about 9 plaintiff’s disability beforehand. (See Docket No. 25-3 at 74.) 10 And third, even if the court were to grant plaintiff’s assertions 11 that Mr. Ramirez visited Teichert prior to the sale, met 12 plaintiff, noticed his prosthetic during that meeting, recalled 13 both this encounter and the fact of plaintiff’s disability 14 leading up to plaintiff’s interview, and subsequently lied about 15 all of this at deposition (Pl.’s Additional Undisputed Material 16 Facts (Docket No. 35-1) Nos. 40-55), all that plaintiff would 17 achieve is to undermine Mr. Ramirez’s credibility as a fact 18 witness. Whether or not Mr. Ramirez lied about the pre-sale 19 visit is immaterial to plaintiff’s instant claims because nothing 20 in plaintiff’s account of that visit and his interactions with 21 4 See, e.g., Chisolm v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 383 F. Supp. 3d 22 1032, 1050-52 (S.D. Cal. 2019), aff’d, 814 F. App’x 194 (9th Cir. 2020) (summary judgment granted for defendant employer, as prima 23 facie case not established even though disability disclosed during interview); Mattsson v. Home Depot, Inc., No. 11CV0533 AJB 24 BLM, 2012 WL 2342948, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2012) (termination a day after learning of medical condition not enough 25 to establish prima facie case). Cf. McInteer v. Ashley 26 Distribution Servs., Ltd., 40 F. Supp. 3d 1269 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (prima facie case established circumstantially by evidence 27 showing, e.g., failure to apply standardized progressive discipline policy). 28 nnn nnn ene ene EE IE IEE IIE OS I OD EE

1 Cemex personnel, like the rest of plaintiff’s case, suggests any 2 kind of discriminatory intent that defendant brought to bear on 3 its decision not to hire him. 4 Accordingly, the court will grant summary judgment for 5 | defendant on plaintiff’s first four claims for disability 6 | discrimination under the ADA and FEHA,. 7 ITI. Failure to Engage in FEHA Interactive Process (Claim 5) 8 Both parties agree to the dismissal of plaintiff’s 9 fifth claim, which alleges that defendant failed to participate 10 in the FEHA’s interactive process. (See Mot. at 19-20; Opp’n at 11 6; Reply (Docket No. 36) at 7-8.) Accordingly, the court will 12 dismiss this claim with prejudice. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for 14 summary judgment (Docket No. 25) be, and the same hereby is, 15 GRANTED. The clerk of court shall enter judgment for defendant 16 and close the case. 17 | Dated: July 9, 2024 betta 2d. bt-—~ 18 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28