Ocampo v. HeiTech Services, Inc.

Background

Henry Ocampo sued HeiTech Services, Inc., alleging that HeiTech terminated his employment because of disability discrimination. His claims were: (1) disability discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) retaliation under FEHA; (3) retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (4) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation under FEHA; and (5) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

HeiTech hired Ocampo in 2008 as a Capacity Building Specialist under a federal contract involving minority-health programs. His work included organizational development, staffing, financial and operational planning, grant writing, and work focused on minority-health issues for Pacific Islanders. In July 2018, Ocampo requested 30 days of FMLA leave because of stress, anxiety, increasing blood pressure, and insomnia. He returned from leave on August 31, took a previously scheduled vacation, and returned to work on September 14 with a medical note stating that he could work without limitations. That same day, HeiTech told him his employment would end in two weeks.

HeiTech asserted that a renegotiated contract reduced the budget, eliminated Ocampo’s HIV/AIDS outreach duties, and eliminated funding for his position. HeiTech also asserted that no other positions were available for transfer and that it had not hired anyone to perform Ocampo’s work. Ocampo argued that the contract continued to require capacity-building and outreach work involving Pacific Island regions and organizations serving Pacific Islanders. He also pointed to evidence that another Senior Program Analyst, Elton Naswood, continued working after comparable HIV/AIDS-related duties were eliminated.

Discrimination and retaliation claims

For the FEHA disability-discrimination claim, the court applied the burden-shifting framework used to evaluate whether an employee was disabled, qualified to perform the job, and subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability. The court found that Ocampo adequately established that he was disabled. His ability to return to work without restrictions did not establish that his stress, anxiety, increasing blood pressure, and insomnia had ended; it showed only that he did not require an accommodation when he returned.

HeiTech identified the contract changes as a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. The court nevertheless found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the contract eliminated all of Ocampo’s duties and funding. Although the contract eliminated Ocampo’s HIV/AIDS-related duties, it still appeared to require capacity development, technical assistance, and outreach in Pacific Island regions and for organizations serving Pacific Islanders. The court also found a dispute about whether the contract itself eliminated funding for Ocampo’s position or instead left funding allocation to HeiTech’s discretion. Evidence concerning Naswood’s continued employment could also allow a jury to find that HeiTech’s explanation was pretextual, meaning a cover for an unlawful reason.

Because the same dispute concerned whether HeiTech’s stated reason was legitimate or pretextual, the court denied summary judgment on Ocampo’s FEHA discrimination claim. The court also denied summary judgment on Ocampo’s remaining claims, including the FEHA retaliation, FMLA and CFRA retaliation, failure-to-prevent, and wrongful-termination claims.

Punitive damages

HeiTech separately sought summary judgment on Ocampo’s request for punitive damages. Under California law, a corporate employer may be subject to punitive damages for specified misconduct by an officer, director, or managing agent. A managing agent must have substantial discretionary authority over decisions that determine corporate policy; merely supervising employees or participating in hiring and termination is not enough.

Ocampo identified Craig Hackett, HeiTech’s Chief Human Capital Officer, but presented no evidence that Hackett set corporate policy or exercised substantial discretion over personnel decisions. The court also found no specific evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud. The court explained that an allegedly unlawful termination and a possible pretext, without more, did not establish the extreme conduct required for punitive damages.

Disposition

Judge Kandis Westmore denied HeiTech’s motion for summary judgment as to Ocampo’s causes of action and granted HeiTech’s motion for summary judgment as to Ocampo’s prayer for punitive damages. The court also set a case-management conference for September 29, 2020, and stated that the scheduled November 2, 2020 jury trial was unlikely to proceed because of the COVID-19 public-health emergency.