Salud v. Expeditors International
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-01677
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 13
In Salud v. Expeditors International, Judge Rogers granted summary judgment on some claims but denied it on retaliation-based claims.
Regina Salud’s FEHA age-discrimination and failure-to-prevent claims and her request for punitive damages were resolved for Expeditors International; her FEHA retaliation claim was dismissed with prejudice, while her California whistleblower-retaliation and wrongful-termination claims survived summary judgment.
What happened
Regina Salud sued her former employer, Expeditors International, alleging age discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and related violations. She also sought punitive damages.
The dispute involved complaints about Salud’s work performance, attendance, and requests to correct overtime entries on her timecard. Expeditors said it fired her for performance problems, attendance, and customer complaints; Salud argued that the termination was retaliation for raising the timekeeping issue.
In Regina Salud v. Expeditors International, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted summary judgment on the age-discrimination and failure-to-prevent claims and on punitive damages, while the court dismissed the FEHA retaliation claim with prejudice. The court denied summary judgment on the California whistleblower-retaliation and wrongful-termination claims.
The detailed version
- Salud v. Expeditors International · No. 4:18-cv-01677
- Yvonne Rogers
- Apr. 10, 2020
Background
Regina Salud sued Expeditors International, her former employer of 17 years. She asserted claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5, age discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), FEHA retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. She also sought punitive damages.
Expeditors hired Salud in 1998. She later worked as a supervisor and then as a logistics coordinator in positions supporting shipping activities connected to Google. The record included disputes about her performance, customer complaints, attendance, transfers, and whether supervisors adequately communicated performance concerns to her. In late 2015 and early 2016, a supervisor removed overtime hours from Salud’s timecard. Salud complained to a district manager, who corrected the timecard. The supervisor later asked why Salud had “throw[n] [him] under the bus.”
In February 2016, a regional manager directed supervisors to conduct a formal performance review for Salud, but the review was not completed. Expeditors terminated her on March 17, 2016, citing poor performance, poor attendance, and customer complaints. She had not received a written warning or performance-improvement plan before the termination.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the summary-judgment standard, under which judgment is appropriate when no genuine dispute exists about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed disputed evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and did not resolve credibility disputes that belonged to a jury.
Age discrimination
The court held that Salud had evidence sufficient to establish that she was performing satisfactorily for purposes of the initial stage of her age-discrimination claim. But it found insufficient evidence suggesting that Expeditors acted because of her age. Her belief that younger employees received preferential treatment was unsupported by specific examples, and the evidence about younger employees’ promotions did not show that Salud was competing or eligible for those positions. The court therefore granted Expeditors’ motion for summary judgment on the FEHA age-discrimination claim.
FEHA retaliation
Salud did not oppose summary judgment on this claim. The court dismissed the FEHA retaliation claim with prejudice.
Failure to prevent discrimination
The parties agreed that this claim depended on the age-discrimination claim. Because the age-discrimination claim failed, the court granted summary judgment on the failure-to-prevent-discrimination claim.
California whistleblower retaliation
Salud’s Labor Code section 1102.5 claim was based on her requests to correct the overtime entries. The court found sufficient evidence of a connection between those complaints and her termination. Both the district manager and the supervisor knew about the complaints; the supervisor confronted Salud about them; and Expeditors terminated her fewer than three months later without warning. The court also found a triable issue—meaning a factual dispute for a jury—about whether Expeditors’ stated reasons were a pretext for retaliation. The timing of the complaints, the termination discussions, the incomplete performance review, the lack of a written warning or performance-improvement plan, and evidence of changed treatment supported that conclusion. The court denied summary judgment on this claim.
Wrongful termination
The parties agreed that Salud’s wrongful-termination claim was based at least partly on the section 1102.5 retaliation claim. Because the whistleblower-retaliation claim survived, the court denied summary judgment on the wrongful-termination claim.
Punitive damages
The court granted summary judgment for Expeditors on Salud’s punitive-damages request. Although Salud showed triable issues concerning retaliation, the court found no evidence that an Expeditors officer, director, or managing agent acted with the extreme indifference required for punitive damages.
Disposition
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted Expeditors’ motion for summary judgment on the FEHA claims for age discrimination and failure to prevent discrimination, and on punitive damages. The FEHA retaliation claim was dismissed with prejudice. The court denied summary judgment on the section 1102.5 retaliation and wrongful-termination claims. The court also denied Salud’s administrative motion to seal certain documents designated confidential by Expeditors. The order terminated Docket Numbers 69 and 71.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.