Valdovinos v. Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc.

Background

Cecilia Valdovinos worked in facility-management positions at Google’s Mountain View offices before Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. took over management and hired her in 2017 or 2018. She later became a facilities manager at the Workday headquarters in Pleasanton and initially reported to Kevin O’Hair.

Valdovinos testified that O’Hair made frequent inappropriate comments, including statements about Mexican employees, women, employees’ appearances, religion, politics, and her Bell’s palsy. She said he made repeated sexist comments, stated that he did not want to hire another Mexican employee, mocked symptoms of her disability, criticized her work to clients, instructed engineers not to cooperate with her, and sought to have the client remove her. Valdovinos complained to Cushman & Wakefield’s human-resources department in April 2019 and later reported that O’Hair’s conduct had continued and that she felt harassed and threatened. She resigned on August 27, 2019, citing stress, a hostile work environment, and lack of support.

Valdovinos brought nine claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act: sex discrimination, national-origin discrimination, disability discrimination, sex harassment, national-origin harassment, disability harassment, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment, retaliation, and constructive wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The defendants removed the case from California state court and moved for summary judgment.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Valdovinos and did not resolve disputed facts that a jury could decide.

Discrimination claims

The court held that Valdovinos presented enough evidence for a jury to find discriminatory intent based on sex, national origin, or disability. Her testimony about O’Hair’s statements—including that women were unsuited for certain jobs, that he did not want to hire another Mexican employee, and comments mocking her Bell’s palsy—could constitute direct evidence of bias.

The defendants relied on the “same-actor” presumption, which can support an inference against discriminatory motive when the same person hires and later fires an employee within a short period. The court concluded that, even assuming the presumption applied, the evidence of discriminatory comments was sufficient to rebut it. The court also found that evidence of O’Hair’s conduct toward Valdovinos, including obstructing her ability to do her job and criticizing her to clients, could support a finding of a materially adverse employment action.

The court further held that a jury could find constructive discharge. Constructive discharge means that an employer’s conduct makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign. The evidence that O’Hair interfered with Valdovinos’s work, sought her removal, and continued mistreatment after her complaints, combined with Cushman & Wakefield’s allegedly limited response, could meet that standard. The court denied the defendants’ motion as to all three discrimination claims.

Constructive wrongful termination

Based on the same evidence supporting the constructive-discharge theory, the court held that Valdovinos could proceed on her common-law claim for constructive discharge in violation of public policy. The court denied the defendants’ motion as to that claim.

Harassment claims

The court found that Valdovinos had testified to numerous offensive comments and acts involving sex, national origin, and disability. Her evidence included constant sexist comments, criticism of her performance before the client, and directions that engineers stop responding to her. A jury could find that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive working environment and was based on one or more protected characteristics.

The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that conduct involving different protected categories could not be considered together. It concluded that a jury could find the overall conduct sufficiently severe, including conduct not expressly tied to a particular protected category. The court denied the defendants’ motion as to the harassment claims.

Retaliation claim

The defendants did not dispute that Valdovinos’s human-resources complaint was legally protected activity. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that O’Hair’s conduct worsened after the complaint, including instructing engineers not to cooperate with Valdovinos and criticizing her work before clients. A jury could infer that these actions were caused by her complaint. The court denied the defendants’ motion as to the retaliation claim.

Failure to prevent discrimination and harassment

The court concluded that a jury could find Valdovinos continued to experience discrimination after her first complaint and that Cushman & Wakefield failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent it. The court relied in part on evidence that the company did not investigate the complaint more thoroughly or take additional action, including expert testimony that the handling of the complaints fell below customary human-resources standards. The court denied the defendants’ motion as to this claim.

Disposition

Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The order left Valdovinos’s claims for further proceedings; it did not make a final finding that she had proved them.