Tandon v. GN Audio USA, Inc.

Background

Ritesh Tandon sued his former employer, GN Audio USA, Inc., seeking damages for what he alleged was a wrongful termination. His claims were: (1) discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5; (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under FEHA; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.

Tandon had worked for GN since 2011 and became a Senior Director in its Strategic Alliance group. He primarily managed the Cisco partnership. He alleged that after he began reporting to Holger Reisinger in 2015, his role diminished, he was excluded from meetings and events, and non-Indian coworkers received better opportunities. He also described alleged mistreatment by Sarah Gray and the marketing team.

Tandon separately claimed that he reported his belief that a coworker was improperly accessing Microsoft information. He also alleged that Reisinger asked him to provide Google with fake software code, known as “monkey code,” and that he refused because he believed doing so would be illegal. GN terminated Tandon on December 15, 2017, telling him that his position had been eliminated. GN said the termination resulted from a strategic shift toward software-related business, the reduced importance of the Cisco account, the restructuring of the Strategic Alliances group, Tandon’s skills, and concerns about his leadership and collaboration.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must present specific admissible evidence showing that a trial-worthy factual dispute exists; pleadings and conclusory statements are not enough.

Rulings on the claims

Age-based FEHA claims. The court granted GN’s motion as to Tandon’s age-based FEHA claims because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies. His administrative charges with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleged race, national-origin, color, and retaliation theories, but did not include age discrimination. The court held that age discrimination was not reasonably related to the allegations in those charges.

FEHA discrimination. The court ruled that Tandon failed to establish a prima facie case—a basic initial showing—of race or national-origin discrimination. Although GN did not contest that Tandon belonged to a protected class, was performing competently, and suffered an adverse action, the court found that he had not offered evidence of circumstances suggesting a discriminatory motive. The fact that Tandon was Indian while other employees were not, along with alleged differences in treatment, was insufficient by itself. The court did not need to decide whether GN’s stated reasons were a pretext, meaning a false reason masking discrimination.

FEHA retaliation. The court found that Tandon presented enough evidence for a prima facie FEHA retaliation claim. His testimony could lead a reasonable juror to find that he complained about alleged race-based treatment and that Reisinger knew about those complaints. However, GN offered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the termination, and the court found that Tandon did not provide the specific and substantial evidence needed to show those reasons were pretextual. The court therefore granted summary judgment to GN on the retaliation claims.

FEHA harassment. The court granted GN’s motion on the harassment claim. Regarding Gray, Tandon could not recall the specific comment that led him to believe she disliked Indians, and the other alleged incidents—such as being ignored or excluded from meetings—were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. The court also held that decisions about meetings, project support, and other personnel-management matters generally did not constitute harassment under FEHA. Regarding Reisinger, the alleged favoritism and workplace “snubbing” likewise did not establish severe or pervasive harassment or a sufficient connection to race, national origin, or ancestry.

California Labor Code section 1102.5. The court granted GN’s motion on Tandon’s whistleblower-retaliation claim. Tandon’s reports about the Microsoft information were not protected activity because he did not provide evidence or a legal basis supporting his belief that the conduct was illegal. His refusal to provide “monkey code” also was not protected activity because his stated concern was that the conduct would breach an agreement with Google. The court held that a suspected breach of contract, without more, is not a violation of a statute, rule, or regulation for purposes of section 1102.5.

Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The court granted GN’s motion on this claim. It held that the claim was barred by California’s workers’ compensation exclusivity rule because the alleged injury arose from conduct in the ordinary employment relationship and fell within the workers’ compensation system.

Derivative claims. The court granted summary judgment on Tandon’s wrongful-termination, failure-to-prevent, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims because those claims depended on the discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or section 1102.5 claims that had failed.

Disposition

The court granted GN’s motion for summary judgment in full. Because the order finally resolved all claims, judgment was entered in favor of GN and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order was signed by United States District Judge Edward J. Davila on January 25, 2021.