Torres v. Securitas Security Services USA Inc.

Background

Joshua Torres brought an employment lawsuit against his former employer, Securitas Security Services USA Inc. The opinion states that Torres worked for Securitas from approximately April 24, 2019, until his termination on or about April 1, 2021. He was assigned to an Amazon site as a site supervisor and was later transferred to a Wells Fargo site after Amazon requested his removal based on performance concerns. The transfer reduced his hourly pay from $25 to $22.

While investigating Torres’s conduct, Securitas reviewed messages he sent through Amazon’s internal messaging system. The evidence presented by Securitas included messages involving non-work-related communications, pornographic material, profanity, comments about coworkers’ gender, race, and national origin, permission for security officers to leave the site during paid meal breaks, and statements suggesting that employees could record time they did not work. Securitas compared Torres’s time records with facility badge records and concluded that he had been paid for more than 33 hours he did not work over two months. Torres also admitted bringing and drinking alcohol at the work site. After investigating, Securitas suspended and then terminated him for inappropriate conduct and policy violations.

Claim and Summary-Judgment Standard

Torres’s sole claim was retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5. That statute protects an employee from retaliation for reporting information that the employee reasonably believes shows a violation of a state or federal statute or a local, state, or federal rule or regulation to specified authorities. Under California Labor Code section 1102.6, the employee first must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the employment action. The employer then must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same action for legitimate, independent reasons.

Summary judgment is a ruling entered without a trial when the moving party shows that no genuine dispute exists about a fact that could affect the result and that the party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court emphasized that Torres provided no evidence supporting his opposition. Because his complaint was not verified, the court did not treat the complaint’s allegations as evidence.

Analysis

The court first considered whether Torres engaged in protected activity. Torres alleged that he reported security breaches and violations of COVID-19 screening protocols to Dierdre De Meideros and Robert Lackey. In opposition to summary judgment, he pointed to California Labor Code section 6400, which requires employers to provide a safe and healthful workplace.

The court held that Torres had not provided evidence that he believed he was reporting a violation of law. It therefore did not reach whether such a belief would have been reasonable. The court also found that Torres had not provided evidence showing that Lackey or De Meideros had authority over him or authority to investigate, discover, or correct the alleged violations as required by section 1102.5. The court concluded that Torres had not created a factual dispute about whether he engaged in protected activity.

The court separately considered causation, meaning whether the alleged protected activity contributed to the termination. Torres argued that the timing of his February 2021 report and his April 2021 termination supported an inference of a causal connection. The court was not persuaded that timing alone created a factual dispute where there was no dispute that the people who made the termination decision were unaware of the alleged reports. The court stated, however, that it did not need to rely on that conclusion because Torres had not shown protected activity.

For completeness, the court also addressed the second step of the retaliation framework. It found that Securitas had shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated Torres for legitimate, independent reasons. The court cited evidence of alcohol use on company premises, falsified time records resulting in more than 33 hours of extra pay, continued use of Chime after his transfer from Amazon, and inappropriate or derogatory messages. Torres submitted no evidence creating a factual dispute about those incidents.

Disposition

The court concluded that Securitas had shown that no reasonable jury could find for Torres on his section 1102.5 claim and that Torres had not shown disputed facts requiring a trial. Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Securitas’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED.