Khan v. SAP Labs, LLC

Background

Muhammad Khan worked for SAP Labs, LLC from 2013 until December 1, 2015. He went on sick and unpaid medical leave beginning June 4, 2015, and was approved for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act through October 5, 2015. His paid leave benefits were exhausted by August 18, 2015, so the remainder of that leave was unpaid. SAP then approved unpaid personal leave from October 6 through October 16, 2015.

While on leave, Khan emailed SAP Human Resources employees that he did not want to return to the team headed by Sanjay Shirole. Khan said he was uncomfortable working with Shirole and that Shirole had consistently abused him. SAP investigated the complaint. During the investigation, SAP allowed Khan to remain on unpaid leave. After the investigation, SAP told Khan to return to work on December 2, 2015, but he did not return.

Khan later filed this lawsuit, asserting employment-discrimination and related claims against SAP, Shirole, and other SAP employees. The only remaining claim was a retaliation claim against SAP under California Labor Code § 1102.5. The claim was limited to Khan’s theory that SAP, through Human Resources employee Jenny Le, placed him on unpaid leave in retaliation for his report about Shirole’s allegedly unlawful conduct.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute about a fact that matters to the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion. Here, Khan filed no opposition to SAP’s motion.

Under California Labor Code § 1102.6, Khan had to show by a preponderance of the evidence—meaning that the claim was more likely true than not—that retaliation for protected activity was a contributing factor in the challenged employment action. If he made that showing, SAP would then have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action for legitimate, independent reasons.

Court’s reasoning

SAP argued that Khan could not satisfy the first part of this test. It relied on Khan’s 2017 complaint to California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, where he stated under penalty of perjury that his physician had placed him on leave because of his disability from June 1 through December 1, 2015. The court held that this sworn statement was dispositive of Khan’s retaliation claim.

The court also relied on other evidence. Khan was already on unpaid leave when he first complained to Human Resources about Shirole. After his approved leave ended, Khan requested and received additional unpaid personal leave. When Khan expressed reluctance to return, SAP allowed him to remain on unpaid leave while the investigation continued. The court found that Khan’s delays and failures to participate in scheduled calls prolonged the investigation, and that SAP eventually directed him to return to work.

Disposition

The court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could determine that retaliation for Khan’s complaint was a contributing factor in placing him on unpaid leave. It therefore granted SAP Labs, LLC’s motion for summary judgment. The order states that the motion was granted, terminates ECF 127, and says that a separate judgment would be entered simultaneously with the order.