Filed 1/7/25 Sanders v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
HOLLY SANDERS,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E082238
v. (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2105886)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF OPINION CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Irma Poole Asberry,
Judge. Reversed with directions.
McCune Law Group, Joseph L. Richardson, Steven A. Haskins and Andrew W.
Van Ligten for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General,
Alice Quinton and Melissa A. Lewis, Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 Plaintiff and appellant Holly Sanders (Employee) sued her employer, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department), alleging racial
discrimination and harassment. The trial court granted the Department’s motion for
summary judgment. Employee contends the trial court erred. We reverse with
directions.
FACTS1
Employee worked for the Department as a correctional officer. Employee began
working for the Department in 2001 and worked at the California Institution for Men in
Chino. In November 2018, Employee “applied for and obtained a transfer to the
Rainbow Fire Camp (Rainbow Camp).” Jonathan Rodriguez (Supervisor) supervised
Employee at Rainbow Camp.
Employee is African-American. “[O]n at least one occasion, [Supervisor] said, ‘I
don’t understand your people.’ ” “[Supervisor’s] use of derogatory comments about
‘your people’ was ‘quite frequent’ and occurred on multiple occasions.”
Supervisor alleged Employee engaged in misconduct at work. Supervisor
reported his allegations to the warden for the purpose of having an investigation
conducted into Employee’s alleged misconduct. In January 2021, “Warden Mona
Houston requested that the Office of Internal Affairs conduct an investigation into [the]
allegations of misconduct against [Employee].” Due to the investigation, Employee
was transferred from working in the camp to working at the California Institution for
1 If the facts are familiar, it is because this court previously addressed this case in Rodriguez v. Superior Court (Feb. 22, 2024, E082288) [nonpub. opn.].
2 Women. Also during the investigation, Employee applied for a promotion to sergeant at
other prisons operated by the Department. Employee was denied the promotion due to
the pending investigation.
The investigation, which began in January 2021, concluded in November 2021.
“None of the allegations against [Employee] were sustained . . . . At the conclusion of
the investigation, [Employee] transferred back to [a camp assignment].”
DISCUSSION
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we independently evaluate the
record, liberally construing the evidence supporting the party opposing the motion, and
resolving any doubts in his or her favor. [Citation.] As the moving party, [the
Department] must show that [Employee] has not established, and reasonably cannot be
expected to establish, one or more elements of the cause of action in question.”
(Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474, 499-500 (Patterson).)
B. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
Employee’s first cause of action alleged racial discrimination by the Department.
(Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) The elements of a discrimination cause of action
include “that the plaintiff: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) . . . was
performing competently in the position . . . she held; (3) suffered an adverse
employment action; and (4) was subject to some other circumstance suggesting
discriminatory motive.” (Diego v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 338,
350.)
3 Employee asserts she was discriminated against due to her race, which is a
protected class. (Gov. Code, §§ 12926, subd. (o), 12940, subd. (a).) Employee worked
for the Department for 20 years. Further, Supervisor’s allegations against Employee
were investigated, and none of the allegations were sustained. One could conclude from
those facts that Employee was competent to perform her job.
An employment action is adverse when it “ ‘materially affect[s] the terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment.’ [Citations.] ‘[T]he determination of whether
a particular action or course of conduct rises to the level of actionable conduct should
take into account the unique circumstances of the affected employee as well as the
workplace context of the claim.’ . . . [The law] ‘protects an employee against unlawful
discrimination with respect . . . to . . . the entire spectrum of employment actions that
are reasonably likely to adversely and materially affect an employee’s job performance
or opportunity for advancement in his or her career.” (Featherstone v. Southern
California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1161-1162.)
Employee applied for a promotion to Sergeant but was denied the promotion due
to the investigation. The denial of a promotion could be viewed as an adverse
employment action because it negatively affects Employee’s career advancement.
Finally, we examine whether “the adverse action occurred under some
circumstance suggesting discriminatory motive.” (Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada
Memorial-Miners Hospital (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 56, 74.) “In the employment
context, ‘ “cat’s paw” refers to a situation in which a biased [employee], who lacks
4 decisionmaking power, uses the formal decisionmaker as a dupe in a deliberate scheme
to trigger a discriminatory employment action.’ ” (Id. at p. 76.)
The January 2021 investigation was ordered by Warden Mona Houston in
response to the allegations made by Supervisor. One could conclude that by reporting
his allegations and requesting an administrative inquiry, Supervisor played a critical role
in triggering the investigation, which caused the adverse employment action, e.g.,
Employee being denied a promotion to Sergeant.
“[Employee] stated that, on at least one occasion, [Supervisor] said, ‘I don’t
understand your people.’ [Employee] could not recall how many times [Supervisor]
used a phrase like ‘your people’ when speaking with [Employee].” One could conclude
that the use of the phrase “your people,” indicates racial hostility on the part of
Supervisor. Because the allegations against Employee were not sustained following an
investigation, one could infer that Supervisor’s motive in making the unfounded
allegations was racial bias against Employee.
In the trial court’s ruling, it wrote, “[Supervisor] made at least one comment
about ‘you people’ to [Employee]. [Supervisor] did not reference [Employee’s] race or
heritage. . . . Here, the comment is not racial in nature.” In Employee’s administrative
complaint, she alleged that Supervisor said to her “ ‘I can’t stand your people.’
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 1/7/25 Sanders v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
HOLLY SANDERS,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E082238
v. (Super.Ct.No. CVRI2105886)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF OPINION CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Irma Poole Asberry,
Judge. Reversed with directions.
McCune Law Group, Joseph L. Richardson, Steven A. Haskins and Andrew W.
Van Ligten for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General,
Alice Quinton and Melissa A. Lewis, Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 Plaintiff and appellant Holly Sanders (Employee) sued her employer, California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department), alleging racial
discrimination and harassment. The trial court granted the Department’s motion for
summary judgment. Employee contends the trial court erred. We reverse with
directions.
FACTS1
Employee worked for the Department as a correctional officer. Employee began
working for the Department in 2001 and worked at the California Institution for Men in
Chino. In November 2018, Employee “applied for and obtained a transfer to the
Rainbow Fire Camp (Rainbow Camp).” Jonathan Rodriguez (Supervisor) supervised
Employee at Rainbow Camp.
Employee is African-American. “[O]n at least one occasion, [Supervisor] said, ‘I
don’t understand your people.’ ” “[Supervisor’s] use of derogatory comments about
‘your people’ was ‘quite frequent’ and occurred on multiple occasions.”
Supervisor alleged Employee engaged in misconduct at work. Supervisor
reported his allegations to the warden for the purpose of having an investigation
conducted into Employee’s alleged misconduct. In January 2021, “Warden Mona
Houston requested that the Office of Internal Affairs conduct an investigation into [the]
allegations of misconduct against [Employee].” Due to the investigation, Employee
was transferred from working in the camp to working at the California Institution for
1 If the facts are familiar, it is because this court previously addressed this case in Rodriguez v. Superior Court (Feb. 22, 2024, E082288) [nonpub. opn.].
2 Women. Also during the investigation, Employee applied for a promotion to sergeant at
other prisons operated by the Department. Employee was denied the promotion due to
the pending investigation.
The investigation, which began in January 2021, concluded in November 2021.
“None of the allegations against [Employee] were sustained . . . . At the conclusion of
the investigation, [Employee] transferred back to [a camp assignment].”
DISCUSSION
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we independently evaluate the
record, liberally construing the evidence supporting the party opposing the motion, and
resolving any doubts in his or her favor. [Citation.] As the moving party, [the
Department] must show that [Employee] has not established, and reasonably cannot be
expected to establish, one or more elements of the cause of action in question.”
(Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (2014) 60 Cal.4th 474, 499-500 (Patterson).)
B. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
Employee’s first cause of action alleged racial discrimination by the Department.
(Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) The elements of a discrimination cause of action
include “that the plaintiff: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) . . . was
performing competently in the position . . . she held; (3) suffered an adverse
employment action; and (4) was subject to some other circumstance suggesting
discriminatory motive.” (Diego v. City of Los Angeles (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 338,
350.)
3 Employee asserts she was discriminated against due to her race, which is a
protected class. (Gov. Code, §§ 12926, subd. (o), 12940, subd. (a).) Employee worked
for the Department for 20 years. Further, Supervisor’s allegations against Employee
were investigated, and none of the allegations were sustained. One could conclude from
those facts that Employee was competent to perform her job.
An employment action is adverse when it “ ‘materially affect[s] the terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment.’ [Citations.] ‘[T]he determination of whether
a particular action or course of conduct rises to the level of actionable conduct should
take into account the unique circumstances of the affected employee as well as the
workplace context of the claim.’ . . . [The law] ‘protects an employee against unlawful
discrimination with respect . . . to . . . the entire spectrum of employment actions that
are reasonably likely to adversely and materially affect an employee’s job performance
or opportunity for advancement in his or her career.” (Featherstone v. Southern
California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1161-1162.)
Employee applied for a promotion to Sergeant but was denied the promotion due
to the investigation. The denial of a promotion could be viewed as an adverse
employment action because it negatively affects Employee’s career advancement.
Finally, we examine whether “the adverse action occurred under some
circumstance suggesting discriminatory motive.” (Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada
Memorial-Miners Hospital (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 56, 74.) “In the employment
context, ‘ “cat’s paw” refers to a situation in which a biased [employee], who lacks
4 decisionmaking power, uses the formal decisionmaker as a dupe in a deliberate scheme
to trigger a discriminatory employment action.’ ” (Id. at p. 76.)
The January 2021 investigation was ordered by Warden Mona Houston in
response to the allegations made by Supervisor. One could conclude that by reporting
his allegations and requesting an administrative inquiry, Supervisor played a critical role
in triggering the investigation, which caused the adverse employment action, e.g.,
Employee being denied a promotion to Sergeant.
“[Employee] stated that, on at least one occasion, [Supervisor] said, ‘I don’t
understand your people.’ [Employee] could not recall how many times [Supervisor]
used a phrase like ‘your people’ when speaking with [Employee].” One could conclude
that the use of the phrase “your people,” indicates racial hostility on the part of
Supervisor. Because the allegations against Employee were not sustained following an
investigation, one could infer that Supervisor’s motive in making the unfounded
allegations was racial bias against Employee.
In the trial court’s ruling, it wrote, “[Supervisor] made at least one comment
about ‘you people’ to [Employee]. [Supervisor] did not reference [Employee’s] race or
heritage. . . . Here, the comment is not racial in nature.” In Employee’s administrative
complaint, she alleged that Supervisor said to her “ ‘I can’t stand your people.’
[Employee] asked, ‘[W]hat did you say?’ and [Supervisor] replied, ‘You know what I
mean, I can’t stand your people’ and walked away from [Employee].” In liberally
construing this evidence in favor of Employee (Patterson, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 499-
500), one could conclude that “your people” referred to African-American people.
5 Therefore, we reject the trial court’s conclusion that the comment could not be found to
be racist.
The Department asserts that the phrase “your people” could refer to correctional
officers, in that Supervisor was a lieutenant while Employee was a correctional officer.
On summary judgment, we draw inferences in favor of Employee—not the Department.
(Patterson, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 499-500.) Therefore, at this stage, when deciding
what “your people” might mean, we infer it has a racist meaning.
The Department contends the actions taken against Employee were not motivated
by racial animus because similar actions were taken against other employees who are
not African-American. As discussed in the paragraph ante, there is evidence that
viewed in favor of Employee, the phrase could support a finding of racial animus. If
there is also evidence of an unbiased motive for the actions, then there is a triable issue
of fact on the matter.
In the trial court’s ruling, it wrote, “Even if [the denial of a promotion] is an
adverse employment action, [Employee] was not promoted to sergeant while she was
under investigation because she was under investigation, not because of her race.” We
disagree with the trial court’s conclusion because one could conclude that Supervisor
requested Employee be investigated due to racial bias and in order to cause adverse
actions for her career, such as being denied promotions. In that scenario, when
Employee was denied the promotion due to the investigation, it comes back to
Supervisor, who allegedly abused the complaint process to harm Employee’s career for
racist reasons, i.e., the cat’s-paw theory. (See Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121
6 Cal.App.4th 95, 100 [“Here the evidence raised triable issues as to the existence and
effect of retaliatory motive on the part of the supervisor, and as to whether the manager
and the intermediate investigator acted as tools or ‘cat’s paws’ for the supervisor, that is,
instrumentalities by which his retaliatory animus was carried into effect to plaintiff’s
injury”].)
The Department asserts that, if this court concludes Employee has a prima facie
case of discrimination, then the Department has met its burden to provide a non-
discriminatory reason for its actions. At trial, “[o]nce an employee establishes a prima
facie case, a presumption of discrimination arises, and the employer is required to offer
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” (Galvan v.
Dameron Hospital Assn. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 549, 558-559.)
By contrast, in a summary judgment motion, “ ‘ “[T]he employer, as the moving
party, has the initial burden to present admissible evidence showing either that one or
more elements of plaintiff’s prima facie case is lacking or that the adverse employment
action was based upon legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors.” ’ [Citation.] ‘If the
employer meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the employee to “demonstrate a
triable issue by producing substantial evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were
untrue or pretextual, or that the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, such that
a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the employer engaged in intentional
discrimination or other unlawful action.” ’ ” (Galvan v. Dameron Hospital Assn.,
supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at pp. 558-559.)
7 In Employer’s separate statement of undisputed facts, it set forth the following
fact: “[Employee] stated that, on at least one occasion, [Supervisor] said, ‘I don’t
understand your people.’ [Employee] could not recall how many times [Supervisor]
used a phrase like ‘your people’ when speaking with [Employee].” One could view the
phrase “your people” as racist, and “I don’t understand your people” as demeaning.
Therefore, in Employer’s statement of undisputed facts, there is a fact indicating
Supervisor may have harbored racial animosity. As a result, the Department has not
conclusively demonstrated, for purposes of summary judgment, that the investigation
was requested for legitimate reasons.
In sum, there are triable issues of fact supporting the elements of Employee’s
discrimination cause of action. The trial court erred by concluding otherwise.
C. REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION
The Department moved only for summary judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (a)(1) [“the action has no merit”]); it did not seek, in the alternative, summary
adjudication (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1) [“A party may move for summary
adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action”]). There are triable
issues of fact on the first cause of action, which means the Department has failed to
demonstrate that there is no merit to the case. Therefore, the motion for summary
judgment fails. We need not address the remaining causes of action. (Hawkins v.
Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, 949 [“[B]ecause [defendant] did not move in the
alternative for summary adjudication of specified issues, we will not address whether
[defendant] may have prevailed on some issues in this case.”].)
8 DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The trial court is directed to vacate its order granting
the motion for summary judgment and enter a new order denying the motion. Appellant
is awarded her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.