Shahrivar v. City of San Jose

Background

Farid Shahrivar sued the City of San Jose and individual defendants over alleged discrimination and retaliation during his employment as an associate engineer in the City’s Public Works Department. Earlier rulings and appellate proceedings limited the case to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging that Danny Tsao, David Sykes, and Katrina Allen retaliated against Shahrivar, after March 10, 2006, for filing complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The only issue remaining for this motion was whether Shahrivar’s 2009 termination resulted from that protected activity. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they had legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for their actions and that Shahrivar could not show those reasons were a pretext, meaning a cover for retaliation.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate 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. The nonmoving party must identify specific evidence creating a real issue for trial.

Defendants presented evidence that Shahrivar received written reprimands and unfavorable performance evaluations based on insubordination, missed deadlines, customer and colleague complaints, tardiness, and similar matters. The City later issued a notice stating that termination was intended because of frequent tardiness, inappropriate and derogatory remarks about supervisors, and inappropriate and unprofessional comments to City employees and contractors using City email. After a conference concerning the proposed discipline, Shahrivar was terminated.

Shahrivar did not identify contradictory evidence concerning the conduct underlying his discipline and termination. He also had not responded to defendants’ requests for admission about those factual assertions. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, unanswered requests were deemed admitted and were conclusively established because Shahrivar had not sought to withdraw or amend the admissions.

The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that Shahrivar could establish an initial case of retaliation based on the timing of his agency complaints and the alleged retaliation. Under the burden-shifting framework used in employment-discrimination cases, defendants then had to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. The court found that they had done so. Shahrivar then had to present evidence creating a triable issue that the stated reasons were not the real reasons and were instead a pretext for retaliation. The court found that he did not make that showing.

The court also rejected Shahrivar’s argument that the burden-shifting framework should not apply. It explained that the cited authority concerned the use of that framework at trial and did not eliminate his obligation at the summary-judgment stage to rebut defendants’ showing. The court noted that the framework would not be necessary if a plaintiff presented other sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence of retaliatory intent, but found that Shahrivar had not done so here.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and stated that a separate judgment would be entered.