Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00282/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00282-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEANA TELLEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-00282-VC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 28

1. O’Reilly’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted as to Tellez’s retaliationbased claims. Even assuming that Tellez has made a prima facie case of retaliation, she hasn’t 

presented evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that O’Reilly’s stated reason 

for firing her (namely, that she threw a computer mouse at a customer) was a pretext and that the 

company’s true motive was to retaliate against her for complaining about wage violations. 

Several months passed after Tellez first complained about the alleged wage violations without 

any adverse action; she was only terminated after she threw something at a customer – the last in 

a series of violations that had put her on “final warning” status (a status she held before she ever 

started complaining about wage violations).

Tellez primarily argues that a series of small factual oddities in O’Reilly’s narrative of 

the customer incident render the company’s legitimate business reason for terminating Tellez 

“unworthy of credence.” For example, Tellez argues that the fact that her store manager, Hewitt, 

did not immediately remove her from work is evidence that he didn’t feel the incident was 

serious. Tellez also argues that the identity of the customer and the timing of his call

complaining about Tellez were suspect. But none of these arguments raises a triable issue of fact 

Case 3:18-cv-00282-VC Document 40 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 3
2

in light of the contemporaneous statements given by Hewitt, the customer, and Tellez herself 

regarding the incident. The fact that Tellez was on final warning status before she started 

complaining about wage violations is undisputed, as is the fact that she suffered no adverse 

action in the months following her complaints, and the fact that the company terminated her 

promptly after she threw the mouse at the customer. And regardless of what Tellez now says 

incited her mouse-throwing, she presents no evidence to suggest Victorino “did not honestly 

believe” Tellez had violated the company’s rules of conduct. King v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 

152 Cal. App. 4th 426, 436 (2007).

Because Tellez cannot make out a claim that she was terminated in retaliation for 

whistleblowing, O’Reilly is also entitled to summary judgment on her Wrongful Termination 

and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims, which rely on the same alleged 

retaliation conduct.

2. Tellez claims that O’Reilly interfered with or denied her CFRA Leave in NovemberDecember 2016 and again in February 2017. O’Reilly is entitled to summary judgment on the 

2016 claim: Tellez was given the leave she requested and although O’Reilly initially flubbed her 

vacation pay – to which she was entitled under O’Reilly policy – the company ultimately 

corrected its error. 

O’Reilly’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied, however, as it relates to 

Tellez’s 2017 CFRA-leave claim. A reasonable jury could find that when Tellez called 

O’Reilly’s leave of absence office, she requested leave to care for her sick daughter, but the 

company misconstrued her request and interfered with her right to take leave. And although it’s a 

close question, a reasonable jury could find that Tellez was entitled to CFRA leave at the time: 

There are enough facts in the record to support a jury’s finding that Tellez’s daughter was an

adult dependent. See Tellez Depo. Tr. at 173-75, 178, Def. Ex. 1, Dkt. No. 28-7; see also Cal. 

Gov. Code § 12945.2(c)(1); 2 C.C.R. § 11087(c).

Case 3:18-cv-00282-VC Document 40 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 3
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2019

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00282-VC Document 40 Filed 04/17/19 Page 3 of 3