motive. Evidence of widespread discrimi- natory comments and conduct, both in an employee’s direct work environment and elsewhere in the company, will be admit- ted to establish the existence of a discrimi- natory “corporate culture” from which dis- criminatory motive may be inferred in an individual adverse employment decision.
Nazir Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., supra, 178
Cal.App.4th 243, may turn out to have the most impact of the four cases, not only for its expansion of available pretext evi- dence but also for its discourse on the proper summary-judgment standard and the paucity of employment discrimination cases in which summary judgment is actu- ally appropriate. The plaintiff Iftikhar Nazir, a dark-
skinned practicing Muslim of Pakistani ancestry, was called offensive names (such as “sand nigger”, “rag head”, “camel jock- ey”, and “f*cking Muslim”) and subjected to other demeaning and offensive con- duct (including being given sandpaper and offensive flyers depicting Saddam Hussein) on a repeated basis for many years during his long-term employment with United Airlines. (Id. at 257-258.) He was fired on May 9, 2005, for allegedly violating United’s zero-tolerance sexual- harassment policy. Nazir’s supervisor, Bernie Peterson, whom he had com- plained to and about repeatedly during his employment, led the investigation into the charge against Nazir. Peterson failed to interview any of the witnesses Nazir identified as persons who would support his version of events and ignored all the evidence suggesting that he and the alleged complainant were engaged in consensual arm wrestling. After Nazir filed a lawsuit alleging
various FEHA claims, including harass- ment, discrimination, and retaliation claims related to his religion, color, national origin and related complaints; United filed a massive motion for summa- ry judgment/summary adjudication that the appellate court termed the “poster child for [summary judgment procedure] criticism” and possibly “the most oppres- sive motion ever presented to a superior
APRIL 2011 The Advocate Magazine — 87
court.” (Id. at 248.) Despite the mounds of evidence the plaintiff had in support of his claims, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion and, without explana-
tion, sustained 763 of its 764 objections to the plaintiff’s evidence. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision on nearly every FEHA claim.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112