This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
FEHA
Discrimination, Retaliation

Robert McCree v. State of California Department of Conservation, Thomas Gibbs, Theresa Green, and Does 1 through 10

Published: Jan. 17, 2015 | Result Date: May 14, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:12-cv-04127-JST Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Brian K. Hilliard

Dominic Porrino


Defendant

Kamala D. Harris

Fiel D. Tigno
(Office of the Attorney General)

Miguel A. Neri
(Office of the Attorney General)

Bonnie J. Chen
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

Robert McCree filed a lawsuit against State of California Department of Conservation, Thomas Gibbs, and Theresa Green relating to wrongful termination and discrimination.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that the Dept. of Conservation hired him in September 2010, as the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer. Plaintiff further alleged that he was subject to workplace violence and harassment. Plaintiff contended, in part, that Gibbs called him a liar and told plaintiff that he went to counseling because of plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleged that Green improperly removed plaintiff from certain executive staff meetings even though Green was not plaintiff's supervisor. Plaintiff also alleged that Green harassed him in that Green told plaintiff that he had to report directly to Green.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that plaintiff failed to prove discrimination on the basis of his age because there was no evidence that plaintiff was replaced by a younger worker or evidence of a discriminatory motive. Defendants further argued that his retaliation claim failed because there was no evidence that plaintiff engaged in a protected activity. Defendants also argued that plaintiff's harassment claim was improper because plaintiff could not show any harassment based on a protected characteristic.

Result

The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court held, in part, that plaintiff failed to show any discrimination based on his age or sex. The court further held that plaintiff's retaliation claim failed because plaintiff failed to establish he was engaged in any protected activity. The court also held that plaintiff's harassment claim failed because plaintiff could not show he any harassment based on a protected characteristic.


#91043

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390