 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Culbreath v. Department of Water Resources3/20/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiff Cheryl Culbreath worked for defendant Department of Water Resources (Department) as an electrician. During her tenure with the Department she became part of a "rewind team," performing maintenance on the Department's pumping and power plants. One of Culbreath's co-workers left the rewind team after filing a grievance against the Department alleging religious discrimination. Culbreath filed a complaint alleging the Department retaliated against her for supporting her co-worker. The trial court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment, finding legitimate business reasons for many of the Department's actions and concluding that none of the remaining alleged acts of retaliation rose to the level of adverse action. Culbreath appeals, arguing questions of fact exist as to (1) whether the Department retaliated against her for opposing religious discrimination against a fellow employee, and (2) whether the Department failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination or harassment from occurring. The Department also appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying attorney fees after finding Culbreath's case lacked merit. We shall affirm the judgment.
CULBREATH'S APPEAL
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties approach the factual and procedural background of these appeals in radically different ways. Culbreath exhaustively recounts the events surrounding the alleged retaliation in 33 pages of her 43-page opening brief. The Department focuses on its own procedures and decision-making process, only briefly alluding to Culbreath's chronology of events. We shall attempt to forge a middle ground between these two disparate narratives, setting forth such portions of the supporting and opposing papers as are necessary to determine the existence of a triable issue of material fact.
A. The Rewind Unit
The Department's operations and maintenance division (Division) is responsible for operating and maintaining the State Water Project. The Division maintains 25 pumping and power plants statewide, which contain 168 pump motors and turbine generators. Of those machines, 105 have large 15 kV class stator windings, which are critical to the plants' operation and which have been operating for 20 to 30 years. Another 63 machines are 5 kV class stator windings, which are considered small machines. Some of the large, aging stators require major maintenance such as coil rewinding, coil rewedging, and other restoration work.
Initially, the Department contracted the maintenance out to private construction firms. Problems arose, and the Department initiated a pilot program in 1990 to utilize Division field personnel to perform the rewind work. The Department solicited volunteers and provided training. The pilot program proved successful, and the Division organized a machine rewind section, headquartered in Sacramento, in 1993.
Generally, a rewind crew consists of two hydroelectric plant electrician (HEP) II's, two HEP I's, and a senior HEP utility engineer who provides supervision. At each new rewind job, one of the HEP II's is given foreperson responsibility for the work.
The rewind program provides for travel, per diem, and overtime as outlined by state personnel requirements. When on a rewind job assignment, rewind crew members may be required to perform a rewind
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|