Nunez-Palomarez v. Verizon Communication Inc.

Background

Martin Nunez-Palomarez worked for Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, for seven years before resigning in 2022. He alleged that Cellco and its parent company, Verizon Communications, Inc., discriminated against him because he is Hispanic by assigning him to a less-favorable branch or territory and passing him over for Managing Partner positions. He also alleged retaliation after making internal complaints about unfair business practices and possible discrimination in territory assignments. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no important fact is genuinely disputed and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Nunez-Palomarez represented himself. The court had previously addressed several discovery disputes and found that the defendants had responded to discovery and produced the responsive documents they possessed. The court also noted that allegations in his amended complaint were not evidence for purposes of summary judgment.

Verizon’s Role

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Verizon on each cause of action and dismissed the case against it. The evidence showed that Cellco was Nunez-Palomarez’s only employer, that Cellco was a separate legal entity, and that Verizon did not employ him or control Cellco’s day-to-day operations, working conditions, wages, hiring, termination, or personnel decisions. Because there was no employment relationship between Nunez-Palomarez and Verizon, the court held that he could not bring a Title VII claim against Verizon.

Discrimination Claims Against Cellco

The court granted summary judgment to Cellco on the race and national-origin discrimination claims. Under the employment-discrimination framework applied by the court, Nunez-Palomarez first had to present evidence supporting an initial discrimination case. Cellco then had to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged actions, after which Nunez-Palomarez had to provide evidence that reason was a pretext—a false explanation masking discrimination.

For the territory-assignment claim, the court found that Nunez-Palomarez had not shown that he was meeting Cellco’s legitimate performance expectations or identified similarly situated employees outside his protected class who were treated more favorably. The record contained repeated notices about performance problems, including low productivity, missed targets, and failure to meet performance metrics. The court also noted that Nunez-Palomarez was offered another territory after complaining about the Mission territory but declined it and chose to remain in Mission.

For the Managing Partner claims, the court found no evidence that race or national origin influenced the decisions. The evidence described his San Francisco interview as lackluster and stated that he lacked preferred qualifications, including meeting sales targets and leading a high-performing sales team. The San Francisco search was canceled because none of the applicants was considered qualified to lead that complex territory, and an experienced Managing Partner from Santa Rosa was moved into the position. Nunez-Palomarez was later rejected for the Santa Rosa position based on his performance record and qualifications. The court held that his personal belief that he was more qualified, without supporting evidence, did not create a genuine dispute of material fact.

The court further held that, even if Nunez-Palomarez had established an initial discrimination case, Cellco had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and unrebutted reason for the challenged decisions: his relatively poor performance compared with other candidates. Summary judgment was granted, and the discrimination claim was dismissed.

Retaliation Claim

The court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim and dismissed it. A retaliation claim required evidence that Nunez-Palomarez engaged in protected activity, experienced an adverse employment action, and could show a causal link between the two.

The court held that the record did not show the required causal link. Nunez-Palomarez’s performance problems had been documented since 2019, before his April 2021 internal complaints. He was placed on an Action Plan in January 2022, about eight months after those complaints, and later received a Documented Counseling Plan when his performance did not improve. The court found that this history and timing did not support his theory that the plans, warnings, or lack of promotion were caused by his complaints.

The court also found no evidence that a manager’s use of the phrase “pending illegal” about another employee was directed at Nunez-Palomarez, related to an employment decision, or constituted retaliation against him. Cellco investigated the comment and disciplined the employee who made it.

Finally, the court rejected Nunez-Palomarez’s argument that Cellco retaliated by refusing to accept his attempt to withdraw his resignation. The evidence showed that Cellco did not ordinarily allow employees to rescind resignations and also considered his performance issues. The court found no evidence supporting the allegation that Cellco refused to accept the withdrawal because he had filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Constructive Discharge

The court also rejected the constructive-discharge theory. Constructive discharge occurs when working conditions are so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign. The court found no evidence that Nunez-Palomarez experienced intolerable working conditions during his employment. It noted that the racially charged comment was directed at another employee and that Cellco investigated and addressed the concerns Nunez-Palomarez raised.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The action was dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment in favor of the defendants.

Naming note

The case caption identifies the defendant as “Verizon Communication Inc.,” while the opinion’s body generally refers to “Verizon Communications, Inc.” This summary follows the caption for the case name and the opinion’s wording when describing the parent company.