Khan v. SAP Labs, LLC

Background

Muhammad Khan worked for SAP and later joined the HanaHaus team, headed by Sanjay Shirole. Khan took sick, medical, and personal leave in 2015. He used his paid leave benefits before part of his Family and Medical Leave Act and California Family Rights Act leave became unpaid. After that leave ended, SAP approved unpaid personal leave through October 16, 2015.

While on leave, Khan told SAP Human Resources employees that he did not want to return to Shirole’s team and complained that Shirole had abused him. Jenny Le investigated the complaints. SAP extended Khan’s unpaid leave during the investigation. On November 30, 2015, Le directed Khan to return to work on December 2, but on December 1 she informed him that SAP had terminated his employment.

After earlier motion practice, the only remaining claim was under California Labor Code § 1102.5. That law protects employees from retaliation for reporting information they reasonably believe shows a violation of a law or regulation to an appropriate authority. The court limited Khan’s claim to the theory that SAP, through Le, placed him on unpaid leave in retaliation for his reports to Le about Shirole’s alleged unlawful conduct.

Khan initially did not timely oppose SAP’s summary-judgment motion. The court first granted the unopposed motion and entered judgment, but later vacated that ruling and judgment, reopened the case, and accepted Khan’s late opposition because he was incarcerated and representing himself. The court then considered the completed briefing.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is available when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When the nonmoving party would bear the burden at trial, the moving party may prevail by showing an absence of evidence supporting that party’s claim. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to identify specific evidence from which a reasonable jury could rule in that party’s favor.

Section 1102.5 retaliation analysis

The court applied California Labor Code § 1102.6’s two-step framework. At step one, Khan had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his protected reports were a contributing factor in SAP’s decision to place him on unpaid leave. If he made that showing, step two would require SAP to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action for legitimate, independent reasons.

The court held that SAP met its initial burden at step one. SAP presented evidence that Khan had already been placed on unpaid leave before making the reports at issue, that he had requested or received leave for medical and personal reasons, and that Le extended the leave during her investigation. The court noted that SAP’s evidentiary record was incomplete, including the absence of documentation showing whether Le spoke with people other than Khan or what result the investigation reached. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the record did not support a reasonable jury finding that retaliation was a contributing factor in the unpaid leave decision.

The court also considered Khan’s sworn statement in his 2017 administrative complaint that his physician had placed him on leave because of his disability from June 1 through December 1, 2015. The court treated that statement as an opposing-party statement that could be considered as evidence. Khan later submitted a declaration denying that a physician had placed him on leave, but the court held that this later statement did not create a factual dispute by contradicting his earlier sworn statement. The court added that SAP’s other evidence was sufficient to meet its initial burden even without considering the administrative complaint.

The court rejected Khan’s arguments that SAP’s motion should be denied because SAP did not file a separate statement of undisputed facts and that declarations from SAP employees were inadmissible because they were not sworn under California law. The court explained that the state separate-statement requirement did not apply in federal court and that the declarations satisfied the federal requirements for declarations made under penalty of perjury.

The court further held that evidence concerning Khan’s reports to other SAP employees did not create a material factual dispute because the claim had been limited to reports to Le. It also concluded that Khan had not identified evidence showing that Le denied a request to return to work, or extended the leave, for retaliatory reasons. The court ruled that Khan’s termination and alleged post-termination conduct were outside the scope of the remaining claim or unsupported by evidence of retaliation.

Disposition

The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that Khan’s protected reporting contributed to SAP’s decision to place him on unpaid leave. It therefore granted SAP’s motion for summary judgment. Because SAP prevailed at step one, the court did not need to reach step two, although it briefly discussed SAP’s argument that the leave decisions were independently justified. Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the motion be terminated and stated that a separate judgment would be entered simultaneously.