Koraitem v. Microchip Technology, Inc.

Background

Microchip hired Kamal Koraitem in 2016 as a Senior Manager of its Applications Engineering Group. Between October 7 and October 10, 2023, Koraitem made several public social-media posts while off duty and away from Microchip’s premises concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict. The posts included statements about the October 7 events, Israeli and Palestinian death tolls, Zionism, Palestinian children who had died, a historical map, and whether the attack was “unprovoked.” Koraitem also emailed then-CEO Ganesh Moorthy after Moorthy sent company-wide emails about the conflict.

Microchip learned about the posts after employees complained. Koraitem’s supervisor told him to delete “inappropriate/questionable content related to the recent Middle East conflict” and to take steps to prevent similar posts. Koraitem deleted the posts. Microchip terminated him on October 12, 2023. The stated reasons included its social-media policy, which prohibited conduct adversely affecting Microchip employees or job performance and posts creating a risk of third-party legal claims. The decision maker identified four posts as violating company policies. The opinion also describes internal discussions about Koraitem being Muslim and supporting or identifying with the Palestinian people, as well as company leadership’s public views supporting Israel’s military response.

Koraitem sued under California Labor Code sections 1101, 1102, and 98.6; California Fair Employment and Housing Act section 12940; and California common law for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Microchip moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment may be granted only when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is legally entitled to judgment.

Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102

Section 1101 generally restricts employer rules or policies that control or direct employees’ political activities. Section 1102 restricts employers from coercing employees through threats of discharge or job loss to follow or avoid a political course of action.

Microchip argued that these statutes did not protect “offensive” political conduct, that it had no policy covered by section 1101, and that there was no evidence of viewpoint discrimination under section 1102. The court rejected the proposed “offensive conduct” exception. It explained that Microchip cited no authority supporting such an exception and that disputed evidence also existed about whether the posts were offensive, harassing, or threatening. A reasonable person could view the posts as political advocacy for Palestinian rights rather than support for terrorist violence.

The court also found a factual dispute about whether Microchip’s broad social-media policy was used to control or suppress Koraitem’s political commentary. The court concluded that commentary about international conflicts and human-rights issues could constitute political activity and that a reasonable jury could find the policy was applied to Koraitem’s posts for that purpose.

For section 1102, the court found evidence from which a jury could conclude that Microchip acted because it disagreed with Koraitem’s political viewpoint. The evidence included the Human Resources Manager’s reference to Koraitem’s Muslim identity and posts supporting the Palestinian people, the decision maker’s disagreement with posts mourning Palestinian children, and company leadership’s expression of contrary views about the conflict. The court held that genuine disputes of material fact prevented summary judgment for Microchip on both sections 1101 and 1102 and denied the motion as to those claims.

Labor Code Section 98.6

Section 98.6 prohibits adverse employment action because an employee engaged in conduct covered by Labor Code chapter 5, which includes sections 1101 and 1102. The court rejected Microchip’s arguments that Koraitem’s posts were unprotected because they were offensive, that his managerial position reduced his protection, and that the posts were not sufficiently off-duty because they could be viewed online at any time. The court found genuine disputes of material fact and denied summary judgment on the section 98.6 claim.

Fair Employment and Housing Act Section 12940

Section 12940 prohibits retaliation against an employee for complaining about race or national-origin discrimination in the workplace. Koraitem argued that his October 10 email to Moorthy was a protected complaint because it opposed treating Palestinian lives as less worthy of sympathy than Israeli lives.

The court disagreed and granted Microchip’s motion for summary judgment on this claim. Although an employee need not use specific words such as “discrimination,” the court found that Koraitem’s email did not indicate that he was complaining about discrimination in the workplace and did not refer to Moorthy’s earlier email, which Koraitem argued had been discriminatory. The court therefore concluded that Koraitem had not shown that he engaged in protected activity under section 12940.

Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

Koraitem also claimed that his termination violated a fundamental public policy embodied in state or federal law. Microchip argued that this claim failed because Koraitem had not shown a violation of state law. Because the court declined to grant summary judgment on Koraitem’s Labor Code claims, it rejected Microchip’s argument and denied summary judgment on the wrongful-termination claim.

Disposition

The court granted Microchip’s motion for summary judgment on Koraitem’s FEHA section 12940 claim. It denied the motion as to Koraitem’s claims under Labor Code sections 1101, 1102, and 98.6, and his wrongful-termination claim based on public policy.