Joshua Miller v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Background

Joshua Miller was hired by T-Mobile in October 2018 as a Mobile Associate and was promoted to Retail Associate Manager in 2021. Miller openly identified as gay, atheist, and mixed race. He alleged that coworker Mr. Georges made comments and acted in ways related to Miller’s sexual orientation, race, and religion, including using a feigned “gay accent,” asking questions about Miller’s sexuality, calling Miller a “DEI hire,” and expressing affinity with a white neo-Nazi group. Miller said he reported the conduct to Market Manager Cishanie Lontoc Murillo and that T-Mobile did not adequately address it.

Miller’s employment ended on October 3, 2023, after an internal investigation into allegations that he made statements about Mr. Georges and created and shared unflattering artificial-intelligence images and poems about him. Miller alleged that the investigation did not fairly consider his account and that Murillo relied on it in deciding to terminate him. He also alleged that T-Mobile retaliated against him for complaining about discrimination and harassment, taking leave under the California Family Rights Act, and requesting an accommodation related to his disability. His operative complaint asserted twelve claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Family Rights Act, and various California Labor Code provisions, along with wrongful termination and related claims.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is proper when the moving party shows that no genuine dispute exists about any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and may not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility. A claim survives if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to resolve an important factual issue in that party’s favor.

Rulings on individual claims

Harassment, Count 5

The court denied summary judgment on Miller’s harassment claim. Because the alleged harassment was by a non-supervisor, Miller had to show that T-Mobile knew or should have known about it and failed to take appropriate corrective action. The court found evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the conduct was severe or pervasive and that Murillo knew about it but failed to take sufficient corrective action.

FEHA and CFRA retaliation, Counts 3 and 10

The court denied summary judgment on Miller’s retaliation claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Family Rights Act. The court found triable factual issues about whether Miller engaged in protected activity by complaining about discriminatory conduct, whether T-Mobile knew of those complaints before terminating him, and whether his termination resulted from those complaints or from taking protected leave. The court said the reasons for the termination involved fact-heavy questions for a jury rather than questions the court could decide on summary judgment.

California Labor Code section 1102.5 retaliation, Count 8

The court denied summary judgment on the whistleblower-retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5. The court held that Miller did not have to identify a specific law when making his reports. His testimony that he repeatedly reported discrimination, harassment, and T-Mobile’s failure to respond could support a finding that he disclosed information he reasonably believed showed unlawful activity to Murillo, who had authority over him.

California Labor Code sections 98.6 and 6310 retaliation, Counts 7 and 9

The court granted summary judgment on these claims. Section 98.6 concerns retaliation for complaints about unpaid wages or other violations made to the Labor Commissioner, while section 6310 concerns retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions or participating in safety committees. Miller did not respond to T-Mobile’s argument and the record did not show that the alleged reporting occurred.

Discrimination, Count 1

The court granted summary judgment for T-Mobile on Miller’s discrimination claim. Miller advanced a theory based on Murillo’s alleged treatment of him and a “cat’s paw” theory, which seeks to attribute a biased employee’s conduct to the employer even when that employee did not make the final decision.

As to the theory based on Murillo’s treatment, the court found that Miller presented enough evidence to create a factual issue about a possible disability-related bias, including testimony that Murillo was annoyed when he sought medical leave and that she decided to terminate him soon after he requested continuing accommodations. But the court found that Miller did not present enough evidence that T-Mobile’s stated reason for terminating him—violating its workplace conduct policy—was a pretext, or false reason for discrimination. The court concluded that Mr. Georges was not similarly situated to Miller because Miller held a supervisory role and the alleged misconduct was materially different.

The court also rejected the cat’s paw theory. It concluded that Miller had not shown that California law would extend that theory to the alleged bias and investigative involvement of a nonsupervisory coworker who was subordinate to Miller and did not make the termination decision.

Failure to accommodate and interactive process, Counts 11 and 12

The court denied summary judgment on both claims. Miller presented evidence that, after his leave, a physician submitted documentation requesting that he not work the same shifts as Mr. Georges. A jury could find that this was a reasonable accommodation request related to Miller’s disability and that T-Mobile denied it. The court also found a factual dispute about whether T-Mobile failed to continue a timely, good-faith discussion about possible accommodations by deciding to terminate Miller instead of placing him on a performance-improvement plan.

Failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and wrongful discharge, Counts 2, 4, and 6

The court denied T-Mobile’s motion on these claims. T-Mobile argued that they depended on Miller’s other claims. Because the court denied summary judgment on Miller’s discrimination and retaliation claims and T-Mobile offered no alternative arguments supporting judgment on these derivative claims, they remained pending.

Punitive damages

The court denied summary judgment on punitive damages. It could not decide as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could find clear and convincing evidence of malice or oppression. It also could not determine as a matter of law that Murillo was not a managing agent, because the evidence indicated that she had broad authority over hiring, discipline, and termination decisions. The court emphasized that these issues would ordinarily be decided on a full factual record.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part T-Mobile’s motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment on Miller’s discrimination claim and his California Labor Code sections 98.6 and 6310 retaliation claims. It denied summary judgment on the harassment claim, FEHA and CFRA retaliation claims, section 1102.5 retaliation claim, failure-to-accommodate and interactive-process claims, failure-to-prevent and wrongful-discharge claims, and punitive damages. The court stated that its order did not express a view on whether a jury would ultimately find Miller’s case persuasive.