McCaffrey v. Republic Services, Inc.

Background

The opinion states that Allied Waste Services of North America, LLC, identified in the complaint and some documents as Republic Services, Inc., hired Stephen McCaffrey as a division manager in late 2017. He later became a municipal sales manager. His performance reviews were largely positive for several years, although the employer also documented concerns about his workplace conduct and performance.

In 2023, the employer lowered McCaffrey’s performance rating, placed him on a 45-day performance improvement plan, and terminated him on June 30, 2023, without conducting a further review. The employer relied primarily on alleged problems involving a customer and an incident at a community cleanup event. McCaffrey disputed parts of the employer’s account and presented evidence of positive performance, including favorable reviews, successful contract rate increases, and testimony from a former city manager praising his professionalism.

McCaffrey also alleged that a manager made age-related and other insulting comments, that company personnel wanted to hire employees who were “younger and smarter,” and that managers asked him to retire. He reported concerns about a directive concerning missed customer pickups and raised concerns about trucks exceeding weight limits established by the City of Salinas. He asserted that these reports contributed to his termination.

Claims and Summary-Judgment Standard

McCaffrey asserted five claims: age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); age-based harassment under FEHA; retaliation for reporting harassment under FEHA; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under FEHA; and retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5(b).

The court applied the summary-judgment standard. Under that standard, judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view disputed evidence in favor of the party opposing summary judgment and may not decide witness credibility or weigh competing evidence.

Age Discrimination

The court denied summary judgment on the FEHA age-discrimination claim. It held that McCaffrey presented enough evidence to create a genuine factual dispute about whether he was performing his job satisfactorily. That evidence included his largely positive performance reviews, his contract rate increases, testimony from the former Salinas city manager, and his own rebuttal of several performance criticisms.

The court also found evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory motive. McCaffrey’s replacement was 25 years younger, and the record included his testimony about a directive to hire employees who were “younger and smarter.” Although the employer disputed whether that statement was made, the court was required at this stage to view the evidence in McCaffrey’s favor.

The court further held that a reasonable jury could find that the employer’s stated reason—poor performance—was a pretext, meaning a false explanation masking unlawful discrimination. The court pointed to the contrast between McCaffrey’s positive review and later low rating, the alleged request that he retire, the performance improvement plan, his termination at the end of that plan, and his replacement by a substantially younger employee. The court therefore DENIED summary judgment on the age-discrimination claim.

Age Harassment

The court GRANTED summary judgment on the FEHA harassment claim. McCaffrey relied on being called “old man” twice, the “younger and smarter” statement, and alleged pressure to retire. The court concluded that, even if the alleged conduct occurred, it was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment based on age. The court also noted that the manager’s teasing targeted characteristics beyond age and was not directed only at McCaffrey.

FEHA Retaliation

The court GRANTED summary judgment on McCaffrey’s FEHA retaliation claim. McCaffrey argued that his complaint about the manager’s “old man” comments contributed to his termination. The court held that more than two years passed between that complaint and his termination, and concluded that McCaffrey could not establish the required causal connection on this record.

Failure to Prevent

The court DENIED summary judgment on the claim that the employer failed to prevent age discrimination. Because the underlying age-discrimination claim survived, the related failure-to-prevent claim also survived at this stage.

The court GRANTED summary judgment on the claims that the employer failed to prevent harassment or retaliation. Those claims depended on the underlying harassment and retaliation claims, which the court resolved in the employer’s favor on summary judgment.

California Whistleblower Retaliation

The court DENIED summary judgment on the claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5(b). McCaffrey argued that his report about directing missed-pickup complaints away from the customer complaint center and his efforts concerning overweight trucks were protected activity. He also pointed to language in his performance improvement plan criticizing him for exaggerating problems and creating alarm or chaos.

Viewing the evidence in McCaffrey’s favor, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that he engaged in protected activity, that the employer took adverse action against him, and that the reports contributed to his termination. The court therefore denied summary judgment on this claim.

Punitive Damages

The court DENIED summary judgment on punitive damages. It explained that punitive damages may be awarded if a jury finds oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing evidence, and that a corporate employer may be liable when an officer, director, or managing agent engaged in or authorized such conduct. The employer did not argue that the relevant decision-makers lacked the required status. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could decide whether the employer’s alleged discrimination or retaliation was sufficiently oppressive, malicious, or fraudulent to support punitive damages.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that it GRANTED in part and DENIED in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.