Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00895/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00895-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 This action was commenced on December 4, 2003 by forty-five plaintiffs. Ten plaintiffs (Rogelio

Ferrer, Luis Lopez Gamboa, Arturo Lopez, Filberto Chan May, Juan Munoz, Oliva Munoz Torres, Antonio

Vasquez, Eloia Vasquez, Armando Velasco and Artemio Velasco) stipulated to dismissal of their claims on

November 15, 2004. Another five plaintiffs (Maria del Carmen Delgadillo, Consuelo Ramirez Diaz, Estela

Robles, Tanya Medrano Segovia and Laura Sierra) stipulated to dismissal of their claims on March 22, 2005. 

Most of the remaining plaintiffs (Elizabeth Alvarez, Elizabeth Morales Arcos, Maria Barajas, Carmen Barrera,

Raul Alvarez Cruz, Veronica Gutierrez De Lopez, Sergio Delgadillo, Sandra Favela, Rocio Ginez, Araceli

Gonzalez, Oliva Jimenez, Alejandra Lopez, Jose A. Lopez Lozano, Humberto Marquez, Carmela Rosas Montes,

Norma Ortiz, Ana Oseguera, Anabel Martinez Ramirez, Feliman Ramirez, Maria Ramirez, Carmen Rodriquez,

Pedro Arango Rosas, Mordoqueo Herrera Sosa, Moises Vasquez, Ricardo Vasquez, Thelma EK Yam and Pedro

Tovar Zepeda) stipulated to dismissal of their claims on May 9, 2005.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA FAVELA et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

TARGET CORPORATION, and DOES 1-50

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 3:04-cv-00895 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

In this employment-discrimination case, plaintiffs allege they were wrongfully

terminated on the basis of race and national origin, in violation of Title VII and the Fair

Employment and Housing Act. Defendant Target Corporation now moves for summary

judgment on behalf of itself and the Doe defendants, its unnamed employees. Because the two

remaining plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there remain triable issues of fact, this

motion is GRANTED.

1

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Although the complaint also referred to 42 U.S.C. 2000d, prohibiting discrimination under Federally

assisted programs, this section is inapplicable here. This order assumes that plaintiffs only intended to plead a

violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, which prohibits unlawful employment practices.

2

STATEMENT

The forty-five plaintiffs who filed suit are all recent immigrants from Mexico and

former employees of three Target Stores located in Rohnert Park, Walnut Creek and Pinole,

California (Compl. ¶¶ 9–11). This motion for summary judgment is directed to the two

remaining plaintiffs: Maria Carmen Fausto Gonzalez and Cecilia Martinez. Plaintiffs’

complaint alleges that they were discriminated against because of their race or national origin in

violation of Title VII (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) and FEHA (California Gov’t Code §12940).2

 They

allege they were wrongfully terminated by defendants upon Target’s receipt of a “no match” list

from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), which indicated that the personal information

plaintiffs submitted on their W-2 forms was not consistent with the official records for those

social security numbers (id. ¶¶ 13–14).

Target counters that its policy of terminating employees who could not resolve the

discrepancy with their proffered social security numbers was non-discriminatory. Moreover, to

the extent that it may have had a disparate impact on Hispanics, Target argues that it was a

side-effect of the SSA’s “no match” list rather than any of its own employment practices. 

Since 1997, Target has participated in an SSA program called Employment Verification

Service (“EVS”), designed to ensure that social security contributions, both those withheld from

employee wages and those paid by the employer, are credited to the correct employee account

(Ereth Decl. ¶ 3). In January 2003, Target had been audited by the Internal Revenue Service for

past problems with the proper allocation of social security withholdings and contributions;

participating in this program was one way for Target to demonstrate that it took reasonable

steps to ensure proper crediting of contributions and avoid being fined (id. ¶ 4). On September

10, 2002, Target’s Manager of Payroll Compliance, Todd Ereth, sent the SSA a cartridge with

the information provided by its employees and the requisite EVS forms (id. ¶ 5).

In October 2002, Target received the “no match” list, indicating there were

discrepancies for 128 employees between the information they had submitted at the time of hire

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 The “no match” lists for the Rohnert Park, Walnut Creek and Pinole stores are appended as exhibits

to the Sigala, Coghlan and Kroon declarations, respectively.

4

 For example, if a female mistakenly indicated on her employment application that she was male, but

the SSA’s records indicated that the reported social security number belonging to a female, the discrepancy

could be resolved by simply correcting the information recorded in Target’s system. On the other hand, if a

male employee had submitted a social security number that, according to the SSA’s records, belonged to a

female, he would have to go to the nearest SSA office and provide Target with proof that the discrepancy had

been resolved. Likewise, if there had been a mere transposition of digits in the employee’s social security

number or date of birth, either Target’s records or the SSA’s records would need to be corrected.

3

and the information the SSA had in its records (id. ¶ 6). This list did not include any

information identifying an individual’s race or national origin; only the name, Target employee

number, reported social security number, sex and date of birth for each employee were reflected

on the list (id. ¶ 7).3 The three stores at Rohnert Park, Walnut Creek and Pinole were each sent

the portion of the list pertaining to the employees at that location, along with instructions

describing possible sources of discrepancy and how they could be resolved (id. ¶ 8, Exh. A).4

Nancy Williams, the Regional Human Resources Manager for the three stores decided

that employees who could not resolve the discrepancy in their reported social security

information would be terminated (Williams Decl. ¶ 6). This decision was based on a desire to

avoid IRS fines, as described above, as well as a concern that an employee’s intentional

presentation of false social security information at the time of hire would be an independent

grounds for termination, as a violation of Target’s Honesty Policy (id. ¶ 5, Exh. A). She asserts

that race and national origin were not factors considered (id. ¶ 9). 

Ms. Williams instructed the human resources representative at each store, (i.e., the

Executive Team Leader-Team Relations or ETL-TR), to inform employees who had appeared

on the “no match” list that they would be terminated if they could not resolve the discrepancy

described in the “no match” list by a given deadline (id. ¶ 7). She further authorized the re-hire

of any employee who could not resolve the discrepancy within the allotted time, but was able to

do so within thirty days of termination (id. ¶ 8). Although Target had received similar “no

match” lists from the SSA in the past, none of the plaintiffs had previously appeared on the list;

if they had, Target asserts it would have enforced the same policy of requiring employees to

resolve the discrepancy or face termination (id. ¶ 11).

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Starting in late November and early December 2002, Michael Sigala, ETL-TR at the

Rohnert Park store, notified the thirty-seven employees on his portion of the “no match” list of

their need to resolve the discrepancy or face termination, using a Spanish-speaking interpreter

whenever necessary (Sigala Decl. ¶¶ 5–6). The employees were initially given until January 15,

2003, in order to delay the possible termination of a large number of employees until after the

busy holiday season, but the deadline was subsequently advanced to January 6, 2003 (id.

¶¶ 8–9). Two employees, one of whom was Hispanic, were able to resolve the discrepancy and

both were retained by Target (id. ¶ 10). All employees who were unable to resolve the

discrepancy on the “no match” list were terminated regardless of race or national origin; he also

asserted that no employee was fired because he or she was Hispanic (id. ¶¶ 11–13).

At around the same time, Suzanne Coghlan, ETL-TR at the Walnut Creek store,

addressed the seventy-three employees on her portion of the “no match” list by holding two

group meetings, followed by one-on-one meetings with each employee, with the assistance of

an interpreter if necessary (Coghlan Decl. ¶ 3–8). Although each employee was given two

weeks to resolve the discrepancy, it was not possible to meet with all seventy-three individuals

on the same day; thus, three different deadlines were scheduled, all after Christmas, in

anticipation of the busy holiday season (id. ¶¶ 7, 9–10). Employees who admitted during the

one-on-one meeting that they were unable to resolve the discrepancy were terminated at that

time, while others were terminated when they were unable to do so by their designated

deadlines, regardless of race or national origin (id. ¶¶ 12–13, 15–18). Twenty employees,

thirteen of whom were Hispanic, successfully resolved the discrepancy and were retained by

Target (id. ¶ 14).

The ETL-TR for the Pinole store, Carrie Kroon, also conducted one-on-one meetings

with the eighteen employees appearing on her portion of the “no match” list, with an interpreter

if necessary (Kroon Decl. ¶¶ 5–6). She also held a group meeting to explain that the

one-on-one meetings did not involve immigration services, as some employees feared (id. ¶ 7). 

Employees who immediately admitted that they could not resolve the discrepancy were

terminated right away; those who did not resolve the discrepancy by their deadlines were also

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 Relevant excerpts of plaintiffs’ responses to interrogatories and requests for admissions as well as

deposition testimony are appended as Exhibits 11-A, 11-B, 11-C, 16-A, 16-B and 16-C.

6

 Ms. Williams also explained that she herself would not have rehired any employee who had

previously presented false documentation, but hiring decisions are made by local managers.

5

terminated, regardless of race or national origin (id. ¶¶ 8–9, 12–13). Like the other stores, the

deadlines had been scheduled for after Christmas (id. ¶ 10). Three employees, one of whom

was Hispanic, resolved the discrepancy and were retained by Target (id. ¶ 11).

During the course of discovery, both Maria Carmen Fausto Gonzalez and Cecilia

Martinez admitted that they were unable to resolve the discrepancy because they had provided

false social security numbers to Target; both had purchased a social security number and

resident alien card because they were undocumented at the time they were hired (See Wohl

Decl. ¶ 3). Moreover, both testified that even if they had been given more time to resolve the

discrepancy, they could not have done so because they were still not authorized to work in the

United States (ibid.).5

The two remaining plaintiffs do not dispute that they were terminated because they had

provided false documentation to Target and were unable to resolve the discrepancies in their

social security information. Instead, they argue that this reason was pretextual because Target

had a history of knowingly hiring undocumented workers; indeed, some of the original

forty-five plaintiffs were re-hired a few months after they were terminated (Hubbs Exhs. E-H). 

Target acknowledges that some plaintiffs were re-hired by local managers despite the

implementation of a more rigorous background check system in January 2003 (Williams

Decl. ¶ 12).6

 Finally, plaintiffs point to various examples of alleged workplace discrimination

against recent immigrants from Mexico, even by naturalized or American-born Hispanic

supervisors (Hubbs Exhs. J-M).

ANALYSIS

1. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Pursuant to FRCP 56(c), summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery

and affidavits show “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists if

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

 Because Title VII and FEHA “operate under the same guiding principles,” courts commonly analyze

an employee’s claims of discrimination brought under both statutes together. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229

F.3d 917, 923 (9th Cir. 1998).

6

there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to return a verdict for the nonmoving

party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

Once the moving party meets its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any

genuine issues of material fact, the nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings by [its]

own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, designate

specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

323–24 (1986) (internal quotations omitted). “Evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed and

all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Yet,

summary judgment for a defendant is appropriate when plaintiff fails to make a showing

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which

that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.

2. DISPARATE TREATMENT.

The applicable legal framework for plaintiffs’ allegations of employment discrimination

based on race and national origin was set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.

792, 802–05 (1973).7

 To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, plaintiffs must

demonstrate that: (1) they belong to a protected class; (2) they were qualified for the position;

(3) they were subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals

outside the protected class were treated more favorably. The burden of production then shifts to

the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. If the employer does so,

then the presumption of discrimination disappears and the plaintiff must show that the

articulated reason is pretextual by showing either that a discriminatory reason more likely

motivated the employer or that the proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Chuang v.

Univ. of California Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 1115, 1123–24 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Throughout this burden-shifting analysis, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the

employee. Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Before proceeding further, it is worth noting that Title VII and FEHA only prohibits

discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In contrast, it is not

illegal to discriminate on the basis of citizenship or alienage. Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc.,

414 U.S. 86, 95 (1973). Thus, it would be unlawful for an employer to discriminate by hiring

aliens of Anglo-Saxon background but refusing to hire those of Mexican or Spanish ancestry. 

Ibid. But while Title VII protection also extends to undocumented aliens, the key question

remains whether there was discrimination based on race or national origin. Equal Employment

Opportunity Comm’n v. Tortilleria “La Mejor,” 758 F.Supp. 585, 590 (E.D. Cal. 1991).

i. Plaintiffs’ Prima Facie Case.

Actual proof of unlawful discrimination is unnecessary to establish a prima facie case;

all a plaintiff must do is “raise an inference that such misconduct occurred.” Warren v. City of

Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 1995). The requisite degree of proof necessary at 

summary-judgment is “minimal and does not even need to rise to the level of preponderance of

the evidence.” Wallis v. J. R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889–90 (9th Cir. 1994).

This order expresses doubt that plaintiffs are able to meet their burden of demonstrating

that similarly situated individuals outside the protected class were treated more favorably

because every employee (whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic) who appeared on the SSA’s “no

match” list was required to resolve the discrepancy. Those who could, including fifteen

Hispanic employees, were retained by Target. Everyone who could not resolve the discrepancy

was terminated, regardless of race or national origin. Furthermore, many plaintiffs openly

admitted that the employees hired by Target to replace them were also Hispanic, negating any

inference that Target was intentionally discriminating against Hispanic employees.

Even so, this order continues with the burden-shifting analysis, assuming that a prima

facie case has been established. Ultimately, this first step is insignificant because plaintiffs do

not demonstrate that the nondiscriminatory reasons asserted by Target were merely pretextual. 

ii. Target’s Proffered Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reasons.

Even assuming arguendo, however that plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of

discrimination, Target has met its burden of producing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

terminating plaintiffs. Target’s first proffered reason for terminating plaintiffs was their failure

to resolve the discrepancy in their social security information, as reflected in the SSA’s “no

match” list. Target also asserts that the intentional falsification of work papers was a violation

of its Honesty Policy and an independent grounds for termination.

iii. Evidence of Pretext.

In an attempt to demonstrate that Target’s proffered reasons for termination were

unworthy of credence, plaintiffs point to evidence that Target has a history of hiring

unauthorized workers and that there was other evidence of discrimination aimed at

undocumented immigrants from Mexico. Even viewing everything in the light most favorable

to plaintiffs, the evidence is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

With respect to plaintiff’s allegations that there were other pre-termination acts

discrimination, this order notes that the only discriminatory act alleged in the complaint was

termination following Target’s receipt of the SSA’s “no match” list. Target’s alleged failure to

pay plaintiffs wages owed upon discharge is already the subject of another lawsuit (Wohl

Exh. 33). The other allegations, (i.e., disparate treatment of and derogatory comments towards

undocumented aliens from Mexico), have not been administratively exhausted and are not the

subject of this lawsuit (See Wohl Exh. 32). Regardless, discrimination based on citizenship or

alienage would not be actionable under Title VII. Espinoza, 414 U.S. at 95.

As for the allegation that Target has a history of hiring unauthorized workers, this raises

an issue entirely separate from the question of discrimination based on race or national origin. 

Put simply, plaintiffs assert that Target purposely hired undocumented aliens, then fired them

only when they faced potential liability for doing so. Yet, despite this different spin on the

facts, plaintiffs essentially concede that Target was merely complying with the law. 

Because employers are prohibited from knowingly hiring or continuing to employ

unauthorized aliens pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1324a, it is “a government-imposed employment

qualification” that employees must be either citizens or resident aliens authorized to work. 

Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc., 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 12, 19 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1998). As plaintiffs

point out, Target would face no liability if employees had presented false documents that

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

reasonably appeared to be genuine. 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(1)(A). But once Target was placed on

notice by the SSA’s “no match” list that some of its employees were possibly undocumented

workers, it was obligated to verify that those employees were indeed authorized to work in the

United States. 

While it would have been a different story had Target arbitrarily fired everyone who

appeared on the “no match” list, that was not the case here. In the words of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service itself, “if an employee has been given the opportunity for wage

reporting purposes to explain and reconcile a reported discrepancy with SSA records, and has

failed to do so satisfactorily, that is an entirely different situation from an initial SSA notice

standing alone” (Wohl Exh. 34 at 2). Here, all employees appearing on the “no match” list

were asked to resolve the discrepancy or face termination. Both remaining plaintiffs have

admitted that they bought fake social security and resident alien cards to present to Target at the

time they were hired. That they could not resolve the discrepancy in their social security

records, or otherwise prove that they were authorized to work, was a legitimate reason for their

termination.

To be sure, the Court does not condone Target’s behavior in turning a semi-blind eye to

the immigration status of undocumented aliens during the hiring process (if plaintiffs’

allegations are true), but subsequently firing employees on the basis that they are not authorized

to work in the United States would not constitute a violation of Title VII or FEHA. There is no

evidence in the summary-judgment record to support a finding of intentional discrimination on

the basis of race or national origin. No reasonable finder of fact could conclude otherwise.

3. DISPARATE IMPACT.

To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, plaintiffs must not only show that

there are statistical disparities in the employer’s work force, but must also identify the specific

employment practice that is challenged. (Disparate impact challenges typically arise in the

context of standardized tests for employment or promotion.) Causation must also be proved; in

other words, plaintiffs must offer statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show

that the challenged employment practice has caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

promotions because of their membership in a protected group. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and

Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994-995 (1988).

Here, plaintiffs have not met their burden. To the extent that a disproportionate number

of Hispanics appeared on the SSA’s “no match” list, Target correctly argues that it was not

responsible for that statistical disparity. All employees who appeared on the list were required

to resolve the discrepancy. There is no allegation (or proof) that Target’s process of asking

employees to resolve the discrepancy had a disparate impact on Hispanics, especially since

Spanish-speaking interpreters assisted whenever necessary. Even if there was a disparate

impact on undocumented aliens (who have since all admitted that they falsified their work

papers), the law does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of citizenship or alienage, as

discussed above.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. In

light of this ruling, this order declines to reach Target’s alternative motion for partial summary

judgment on the issue of whether plaintiffs would have otherwise been precluded from back pay

anyway, pursuant to the after-acquired evidence doctrine. Judgment will be entered

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2005 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00895-WHA Document 133 Filed 05/10/05 Page 10 of 10