Castillo v. St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc.

Background

Bradley Castillo asserted eight categories of claims under California law: age discrimination and harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); disability discrimination and harassment under FEHA; failure to accommodate a disability; failure to participate in the required interactive process concerning accommodation; retaliation under FEHA and California Labor Code section 1102.5; failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment under FEHA; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and failure to provide a personnel file under California Labor Code section 1198.5.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the court to resolve the claims without a trial. Castillo’s claims involved his supervisor’s criticism of his written communications, his disclosure of dyslexia, his complaints to Human Resources, and his termination after an expense report for a “birthday lunch.” Defendants identified the allegedly intentional miscoding of that report and Castillo’s later statements about it as legitimate reasons for the termination.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the evidence was insufficient to create a factual dispute on Castillo’s age-discrimination and age-harassment claims. Castillo testified that his supervisor had not made negative comments about his age. The court found that the supervisor’s single question about how long Castillo planned to remain with the organization, together with Castillo’s subjective belief that age explained the criticism, was not enough to support those claims.

The court found factual disputes sufficient to prevent summary judgment on Castillo’s disability-discrimination and disability-harassment claims. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Castillo, showed criticism of spelling, punctuation, and other communications after he disclosed his dyslexia, as well as Castillo’s testimony that he felt publicly targeted. The court also found factual disputes on his failure-to-accommodate and interactive-process claims. The evidence included a prior supervisor’s accommodations, discussions with the new supervisor about dyslexia, and conflicting interpretations of whether a later meeting addressed accommodation needs or only performance expectations.

The court also found factual disputes concerning retaliation and wrongful termination. Castillo had complained to Human Resources about his supervisor’s treatment, the supervisor knew about those complaints, and the supervisor later referred the expense report for investigation. A reasonable jury could find that defendants’ stated reason for termination was not credible, considering evidence including Castillo’s prior evaluations, the approval and nonfraudulent nature of the expense, the supervisor’s earlier statement about putting him on a performance-improvement plan or finding a way to let him go, and evidence concerning progressive discipline. For the retaliation claim under Labor Code section 1102.5, the court also found that defendants had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that they would have taken the same action for legitimate, independent reasons even without protected activity.

The court separately found disputed facts concerning Castillo’s request for his personnel file, so summary judgment was inappropriate on that claim. Because several claims survived summary judgment, the court allowed Castillo’s punitive-damages claims to proceed to trial.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The ruling granted summary judgment on Castillo’s age-discrimination and age-harassment claims and denied summary judgment on the remaining claims identified in the opinion. The court set the trial for June 5, 2023, and the pretrial hearing for June 1, 2023.