Facts

Plaintiff Doe, an African-American attorney in her 40s, began working at Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) General Counsel's office on the Human Resources Team in July 2005. Plaintiff alleged that beginning in 2007, her team leader treated the three non African-American male attorneys more favorably than the two African-American, female attorneys on the team by giving the male attorneys more favorable and easier assignments. Plaintiff complained to her team leader about the purported differences in treatment. In April or May 2007, plaintiff also complained to the Deputy General Counsel of LAUSD, about the perceived discrimination

Between 2006 and 2007, plaintiff alleged that she made three complaints to her supervisors regarding settlement decisions while she was on the HR Team.

First, in approximately 2006, the plaintiff complained to her team leader that a $1,500 settlement was improper despite the fact that she admitted the upcoming hearing in the case was "very difficult to win" and she has never won such a hearing.

Second, in 2007, the plaintiff complained to her team leader and the Deputy General Counsel that LAUSD's payment of back pay to an employee was a gift of public funds. In actuality, Education Code section 44940.5(c) mandated the payment.

Third, in 2007, the plaintiff told the Deputy General Counsel that she disagreed with a settlement decision even though she was not fully familiar with the case and did not know the circumstances of the settlement.

In mid-2007, the plaintiff requested a transfer to another team because she "was really stressed out by all the litigation and the hearings." Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff was transferred to the Facilities Team under a different team leader.

The plaintiff's work performance during her first three months on the Facilities Team was deficient. During this time, she failed to appear at a case management conference hearing, failed to timely file case management conference statements in three of her cases, failed to timely send out requisite tender letters in two cases, could not keep track of her cases and/or assignments, delayed in making evidence available to the opposing party in labor compliance matters, was late for a pre-qualification hearing, failed to respond to inquiries regarding the status of her cases, and exhibited a dismissive attitude toward her professional responsibilities and her mistakes.

The plaintiff's poor performance caused numerous problems on the Facilities Team. The team leader of the Facilities Team leader and the Deputy General Counsel discussed the plaintiff's history of performance problems and decided to recommend her dismissal. During these discussions, several emails and documents pertaining to plaintiff's performance were unintentionally and accidentally placed on an internal office program. This program made the documents accessible only to General Counsel employees who used the program. When LAUSD learned that the documents were on the program, it immediately took them off.

The plaintiff brought this action against LAUSD based on retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code section 1102.5; discrimination and harassment based on race, sex, and/or age in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act; and public disclosure of private facts.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that she was discriminated against based on race, sex and age from 2005 to 2007. She also claimed that she was terminated in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination and LAUSD's settlement decisions. In support of this claim, plaintiff alleged that other employees had performance problems but were not dismissed. Lastly, she claimed that LAUSD publicly disclosed private facts about her by placing documents discussing her performance on the internal computer program.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
LAUSD contended that it never discriminated or harassed against plaintiff because the assignments were assigned based on each team members' workload and experience. These claims were also administratively barred because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Lastly, the purported harassment was not actionable because they were neither severe nor pervasive such that they were actionable.

LAUSD also contended that it terminated plaintiff solely on the basis of her poor performance and there was no evidence that LAUSD's stated reasons for the termination were a pretext for retaliation.

While plaintiff argued that she was treated differently from third party employees who also made performance errors, these comparisons were faulty. Not only did plaintiff lack personal knowledge regarding the circumstances surrounding the third party employees' acts, none of the employees were similarly situated to plaintiff.

Lastly, LAUSD argued that plaintiff's claim for public disclosure of private facts failed because there was no public disclosure and the manner of the disclosure was not offensive. The only people who were known to have access the information were plaintiff's two friends. By her plaintiff's own admission, she was not offended that these two people saw the information because they were her friends.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $283,000. LAUSD counter-offered $80,000 for a global settlement.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Nov. 17, 2008.