Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02374/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02374-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

05cv2374 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SNEDDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05-CV-2374-L(JMA)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [doc. #15]

and DIRECTING THE CLERK OF

THE COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT

Defendant moves for summary judgment or in the alternative, for summary adjudication. 

The motion has been fully briefed and the Court finds this matter suitable for determination on

the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 

Summary Judgment Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 empowers the court to enter summary judgment on

factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 327

(1986). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, 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.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). A fact is material when, under the substantive governing law, it

affects the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);

Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 11
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 05cv2374 

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party does

not have the burden of proof at trial, it may carry its initial burden by “produc[ing] evidence

negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case, or, after suitable discovery, the

moving party may show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential

element of its claim or defense to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire &

Marine Ins. Co., v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000). When the moving party

bears the burden of proof on an issue — whether on a claim for relief or an affirmative defense

— the party “must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or

defense to warrant judgment in its favor.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th

Cir. 1986); see S. Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana, 336 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2003).

If the moving party fails to discharge its initial burden of production, summary judgment

must be denied and the court need not consider the nonmoving party’s evidence, even if the

nonmoving party bears the burden of persuasion at trial. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S.

144, 159-60 (1970); Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1102-03. When the moving party carries its initial

burden of production, the nonmoving party cannot “rest upon mere allegation or denials of his

pleading.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Rather, the non-movant must “go beyond the pleadings

and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on

file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at

324 (internal quotations omitted); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256; Nissan Fire, 210 F.3d at 1103. 

A “genuine issue” of material fact arises if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. “Disputes over

irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment.” T.W. Elec.

Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). When ruling on a

summary judgment motion, the court cannot engage in credibility determinations or weighing of

the evidence; these are functions for the jury. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Playboy Enters., Inc.

v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2002). The court must view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonCase 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 11
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 05cv2374 

movant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Gibson v.

County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1106

(2003). The court is not required “to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable

fact,” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996), but rather “may limit its review to

the documents submitted for purposes of summary judgment and those parts of the record

specifically referenced therein.” Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026,

1030 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Factual Background

In April 2001, James Sneddon (“plaintiff” or “Sneddon”) was hired as Outbound

Supervisor at an ABF Freight System (“defendant” or “ABF”) trucking terminal.

When Sneddon was hired, he was 59 years old and had over 30 years of experience in the freight

industry. Although plaintiff was first employed at the ABF Pico Rivera, California terminal, he

was transferred, at his request, to the ABF Chula Vista, California terminal. Sneddon was

supervised by Bob Ramsey, Gary Boots, and Jeff McNabb (“McNabb”) during the time that he

worked at the Chula Vista terminal. McNabb was plaintiff’s supervisor at the time of his

employment termination.

As Outbound Supervisor, plaintiff was responsible for staffing and supervising the crew

responsible for loading trucks, ensuring that the goods loaded into the trucks were secure so as to

protect the goods from damage, packing the trucks to maximize volume and weight, and routing

trucks for efficient and claim-free transit. (Sneddon Dep., at 29; McNabb Decl. at ¶ 6). 

Defendant contends that there are two critical aspects of plaintiff’s position: increasing load

average and reducing damage claims. (McNabb Decl., ¶ 8). Defendant argues that despite

coaching and reminders from his supervisor, McNabb, plaintiff failed to improve in these critical

areas and accordingly, McNabb terminated plaintiff’s employment on April 11, 2005. Plaintiff

asserts that his termination was not the result of his poor performance but rather was because of

his age. On July 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a charge of age discrimination with the California

Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”).

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges age discrimination in violation of California Government

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 3 of 11
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 05cv2374 

Code section 12940, et seq.; breach of express promise not to terminate except for cause; breach

of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; tortuous termination in violation of public

policy; and violation of Government Code section 12940(i)

Discussion

1. Age Discrimination

a. Prima facie case

California has adopted the three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United

States Supreme Court for trying claims of discrimination under FEHA. McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973). Under this test, plaintiff must first present a prima

facie case. If plaintiff makes a prima facie showing, a presumption of discrimination arises,

requiring the employer to come forward with evidence "that its action was taken for a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason." Guz v. Bechtel Nat., Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 355-56 (Cal. 2000). "If the

employer sustains this burden, the presumption of discrimination disappears. The plaintiff must

then have the opportunity to attack the employer's proffered reasons as pretexts for

discrimination, or to offer any other evidence of discriminatory motive." Id., 24 Cal. 4th at 356

(citations omitted).

Sneddon's prima facie case for his age discrimination causes of action requires him to

demonstrate four elements: (1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was performing

competently in his position, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) some

circumstance that suggests a discriminatory motive. Id., 24 Cal. 4th at 355; Deschene v. Pinole

Point Steel Co., 76 Cal. App.4th 33, 44 (1999)(disability discrimination). An age discrimination

claim also requires that plaintiff show he was replaced by a substantially younger person. 

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-143 (2000) ; Begnal v. Canfield

& Associates, Inc., 78 Cal. App.4th 66, 73 (2000). It is well settled that demonstrating a prima

facie case presents only a minimal burden. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502,

506 (1993). 

Sneddon alleges age discrimination in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act

(“FEHA”). Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a), makes it an unlawful employment

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 4 of 11
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 05cv2374 

practice to discriminate based on age. As noted above, a plaintiff alleging age discrimination

bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 354. Defendant

contends that plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case because he was not competently

performing his job as Outbound Supervisor when his employment was terminated.

Although, as noted above, demonstrating that a prima facie case has been made is a

minimal burden, plaintiff must come forward with some showing that his work was being

performed in a competent manner. To demonstrate he was performing competently, plaintiff

relies on his 2002 and 2003 performance reviews that show both “meets or exceeds

exp[ectations]” and “needs improvement” ratings but no “unacceptable performance” ratings in

contrast with his 2004 review that contains 17 “unacceptable performance” ratings. (Exh. B, C

and D, Defendant’s Appendix of Exhibits). Plaintiff contends that the earlier reviews show he

was performing his work competently. But the number of “needs improvement” ratings in 2002

and 2003 suggests that plaintiff’s performance needed significant improvement even during

those years. Moreover, the earlier ratings of “meets or exceeds exp[ectations]” in some

categories does not demonstrate that plaintiff’s performance was necessarily adequate or

competent in 2004. Additionally, the “needs improvement” ratings plaintiff received over the

years of his employment consistently included areas that were of particular concern to ABF and

McNabb in deciding to terminate plaintiff’s employment: loadings (2003), claim prevention

(2002, 2003) and productivity (2002, 2003, 2004). 

Having reviewed the evidence presented, plaintiff has not established a prima facie case

on his age discrimination claims. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Sneddon was not 

performing his job competently prior to his termination. 

b. Legitimate, non-discriminatory rationale

Nevertheless, if the Court were to assume plaintiff has set forth a prima facie case of age

discrimination, the burden would shift to defendant to show that it had a legitimate,

non-discriminatory reason to terminate plaintiff’s employment. 

ABF first points to plaintiff’s performance reviews between 2002-2004 to show that

plaintiff’s work was progressively worsening to the point where his performance was

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 5 of 11
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 Plaintiff does not explain satisfactorily why or how the arrival of a replacement on

the same day as plaintiff’s termination demonstrates age discrimination.

6 05cv2374 

unacceptable for continuing employment in 2005. As noted above, the critical areas of concern

about plaintiff’s performance existed throughout his employment as shown by the multi-year

annual evaluations.

ABF also provides a series of approximately 30 emails from June 2004 and February

2005, between McNabb and plaintiff, or between McNabb and his supervisors that were

forwarded to plaintiff setting forth plaintiff’s errors, problems, and inadequate attention to detail. 

(Defendant’s Exhibits E through OO). McNabb repeatedly expresses particular concern with

damage claims, trailer loading and the untimely arrival of time-sensitive shipments. Plaintiff

does not suggest that these emails were anything other than reflective of his work problems. He

does not contend that the damage claims attributed to his lack of oversight did not exist or that

the late shipments were actually timely or that trucks were loaded under the maximum capacity

on his shift. Such repeated highlighted areas of concern demonstrate legitimate cause for

employment termination.

Based upon the substantial amount of evidence presented that demonstrates plaintiff was

not performing his essential functions competently, defendant has provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for plaintiff’s termination.

c. Discriminatory motive

Plaintiff contends, however, that defendant’s rationale for terminating his employment is

a mere pretext for age discrimination. Plaintiff relies on two comments made by McNabb to

plaintiff. The first comment occurred when McNabb became plaintiff’s supervisor early in

2004, over one year prior to plaintiff’s termination. McNabb asked about when plaintiff was

planning to retire. The second comment occurred at the time of plaintiff’s termination when he

was told the company needed someone with “more energy” which plaintiff contends is a clear

euphemism for “younger.” Because plaintiff’s replacement arrived on the same day plaintiff

was terminated, Sneddon contends this also demonstrates age discrimination.1

 Plaintiff offers no

other evidence suggesting discriminatory motive.

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 6 of 11
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 05cv2374 

Isolated and “‘stray’ remarks are insufficient to establish discrimination” without other

indicia of discriminatory intent. Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1438 (9th Cir. 

1990). “Remarks . . . when unrelated to the decisional process, are insufficient to demonstrate

that the employer relied on illegitimate criteria, even when such statements are made by the

decision-maker in issue.” Smith v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 875 F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th Cir.

1989). McNabb’s question about plaintiff’s intended retirement date cannot be said to be tied to

plaintiff’s termination coming, as it did, over a year prior to plaintiff’s termination. The

comment is too remote in time to be probative. McNabb’s alleged comment about plaintiff

being let go because ABF wanted someone with “more energy” arguably touches upon the

decisional process, but it is not significant because “more energy” is an ambiguous comment at

best. Although plaintiff believes the comment is necessarily reflective of age discrimination, it

is not. Taken as a whole, the comments referred to do not provide support for a finding of

discrimination sufficient to overcome defendant’s evidence that its action was taken for a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Accordingly, as a matter of law, plaintiff’s claim for age

discrimination fails on the merits.

2. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

Defendant correctly contends that if the claim for age discrimination fails, plaintiff’s

cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy fails because it is

derivative of plaintiff’s statutory claim under Government Code § 12940. Plaintiff argues, in

full, that defendant’s “premise is flawed due to the strength of the discrimination claim.” (Opp.

at 11). As discussed above, however, plaintiff has neither made a prima facie showing for

finding age discrimination nor overcome defendant’s evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for plaintiff’s termination under FEHA. Accordingly, plaintiff’s cause of action for

wrongful termination in violation of public policy must also fail. 

3. Breach of the Implied Contract of Continuing Employment

In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, employment is presumed to be at-will. Labor

Code section 2922 states: "An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will

of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 7 of 11
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 05cv2374 

a period greater than one month." Thus, "[a]n at-will employment may be ended by either party 'at

any time without cause,' for any or no reason . . . ." Guz, 24 Cal.4th at 335 [citations omitted]. But

as the court noted in Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654, 677 (1988):

We begin by acknowledging the fundamental principle of freedom of contract:

employer and employee are free to agree to a contract terminable at will or subject to

limitations.... This [Labor Code] presumption may, however, be overcome by

evidence that despite the absence of a specified term, the parties agreed that the

employer's power to terminate would be limited in some way, e.g., by a requirement

that termination be based only on 'good cause.' " 

Because of the presumption of at-will employment, the burden is on plaintiff to show the existence

of an explicit or implied agreement changing the at-will nature of his employment. See Guz, 24

Cal.4th at 335, fn. 7. 

Notwithstanding plaintiff’s acknowledged status as an at-will employee, plaintiff argues that

defendant breached an implied-in-fact contract that he would only be terminated for cause. (Opp.

at 12). Plaintiff contends that he has raised a material issue of fact precluding summary judgment

on this claim because defendant’s words or conduct created a contract requiring that plaintiff’s atwill employment would be terminated only for good cause. 

Plaintiff asserts that a contract was created in this particular case because he was terminated

after a single year of an unacceptable annual performance review and without written warning that

his employment would be terminated if his performance did not improve. Neither of these two

assertions suggest that the parties agreed to change the at-will nature of plaintiff’s employment.

Plaintiff does not present any evidence that he was given any assurances of continued employment,

or defendant had policies that limited the reasons for termination, or that a time period or series of

unacceptable performance reviews was required prior to an employee’s termination. 

Plaintiff makes much of the poor performance reviews given to plaintiff’s supervisor,

McNabb, over the course of three years. But McNabb and plaintiff are not similarly situated –

McNabb was plaintiff’s supervisor. There has been no showing that someone in plaintiff’s position

would remain in defendant’s employ given the multiple and continuing notes and comments of poor

performance provided to plaintiff concerning his job. Plaintiff also does not argue that he was aware

of McNabb’s performance reviews before or at the time of his termination. Therefore, plaintiff

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 8 of 11
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 05cv2374 

cannot demonstrate that he relied on McNabb’s performance evaluations as an assurance that his

employment would be continued in the face of poor reviews and complaints about his work. 

 Sneddon has provided the trial court with no admissible evidence of a specific promise to

rebut the at-will presumption or of anything else that in the totality of circumstances would rebut

the presumption. Thus, as a matter of law, plaintiff has not overcome the presumption of at-will

employment such that an implied contract was formed permitting termination only upon a showing

of good cause. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted on this claim.

4. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Plaintiff acknowledges that Sneddon's employment was at-will initially. Plaintiff contends,

however, that his "at-will" employment status was changed to a contractual agreement to continue

in defendant’s employ absent a showing of good cause for termination. Based on this alleged

implied contractual relationship, plaintiff contends that defendant has breached the implied covenant

of good faith and fair dealing in terminating plaintiff’s employment

As discussed above, there is no evidence supporting plaintiff’s contention that an implied

contract was formed based on defendant’s conduct, specifically, retaining McNabb notwithstanding

his alleged poor performance reviews, or any words spoken by defendant providing assurances of

Sneddon’s continuing employment.

In discussing an at-will employment relationship, the California Supreme Court has clearly

stated that "the remedy for breach of an employment agreement, including the covenant of good

faith and fair dealing implied by law therein, is solely contractual. Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 351. Because

there was no contractual relationship between the parties, defendant is entitled to summary judgment

on plaintiff’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

5. Government Code Section 12940(i) Claim

Plaintiff has brought a claim against defendant for failure to prevent discrimination. The

Court has found no viable claim of discrimination; therefore, there can be no independent cause of

action for failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA. Trujillo v. N. County Trans. Dist., 63 Cal.

App. 4th 280, 289, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 596 (1998) ("Employers should not be held liable to employees

for failure to take necessary steps to prevent such conduct, except where the actions took place and

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 9 of 11
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 05cv2374 

were not prevented."). In that absent a showing of actionable discrimination, there can be no

violation of Government Code § 12940(i). See Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Workers' Comp.

Appeals Bd. , 103 Cal. App. 4th 1021, 1035, 127 Cal. Rptr.2d 285 (2002).

The Court further notes that plaintiff has not presented any argument to defendant’s motion

on this claim in his responsive memorandum. It appears that plaintiff has abandoned this claim.

Because the Court has concluded that plaintiff has not demonstrated a viable claim of age

discrimination, defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s cause of action brought

under Government Code § 12940(i). 

6. Punitive Damages

Under California law, punitive damages are allowed "where it is proven by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice." CAL. CIV.

CODE § 3294(a). "Malice" is defined as "conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury

to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and

conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." Id. § 3294(c)(1).

Here, there has been no evidence presented that defendant caused plaintiff any injury or was

guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. As set forth above, defendant’s motion for summary judgment

on the substantive claims alleged in plaintiff’s Complaint will be granted. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

requested relief for punitive damages must fail.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 10 of 11
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

11 05cv2374 

Conclusion

Plaintiff's age discrimination claims fails because plaintiff establishes neither a prima

facie case nor rebuts defendant's legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for the adverse

employment action. Plaintiff has also failed to make an evidentiary showing sufficient to

counter defendant’s evidence concerning the claims of breach of the implied contract of

continuing employment and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. IT

IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot defendant’s motion for summary adjudication. IT

IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in accordance

with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. JAN M. ADLER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-02374-L-JMA Document 21 Filed 04/26/07 Page 11 of 11