 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodriguez v. Linens `N Things10/14/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Anna Maria Rodriguez was terminated from her position as a merchandise manager at a Linens `N Things store. She sued Linens `N Things, Inc. (employer) and her former supervisor, Lynn Royak, for employment discrimination and wrongful termination based upon her sexual orientation (gay), and alleged other claims. The trial court granted employer's summary judgment motion on the ground that employer had a nondiscriminatory reason for terminating appellant and appellant failed to demonstrate that the reason was pretextual. Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because she proffered substantial evidence of pretext. We agree and reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant began working for employer in November 1999. In February 2001, she was transferred to the Puente Hills store and was promoted to a merchandise manager position where she was supervised by Royak. Some of appellant's new duties included keeping her departments up to company standards, staff development, expense and inventory control, ensuring her areas were stocked, monitoring freight flow and merchandise presentation, and unloading merchandise from trucks. District Director Greg Doran terminated appellant on October 24, 2002.
Appellant sued employer and Royak for sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy based on sexual orientation discrimination. (Gov. Code, ยงยง 12900, 12940, subd. (a).)
Employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that it demonstrated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination: poor job performance. In support of its motion, employer submitted copies of written warning notices and a discharge notice, Doran's declaration and deposition testimony, appellant's deposition testimony, and documentation of a reprimand given to another manager.
Over a 20-month period, appellant received four written warnings concerning her job performance. On March 29, 2001, Royak gave her a final warning about failing to call in or report to work. Appellant received a final warning for not making a bank deposit on April 14, 2001. She did not object in writing to either of these two warnings.
On August 19, 2002, appellant was given a warning stating that she failed to meet a verbal obligation to maintain standards, and she failed to fulfill her managerial duties, train her staff, and fix missing displays. The warning notice further stated that appellant failed to call a supervisor to report an absence. She was given until September 19, 2002, to bring her departments up to company standards. Appellant wrote on the warning notice that she could not recall conversing about her job performance, she was not on duty during a "Right Price Initiative," she was not given enough hours to get everything done, and her absence was justified because she was taking a prepaid and preapproved vacation day.
On September 16, 2002, Royak gave appellant a final warning notice for not fixing the deficiencies listed in the August 19 warning. The final notice stated that she failed to meet expectations, mirrors were not tagged, furniture was not built, and some products were not priced and were not organized. Appella
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|