Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01787/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01787-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

 Unless otherwise specified Defendants are collectively referred to as “Apple.” 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Nancy Zayed,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Apple Computers, a corporation doing

business in California; David Black, an

individual,

Defendants.

 / 

NO. C 04-01787 JW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART APPLE'S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

The instant lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff Nancy Zayed’s (“Zayed”) former employment with

Defendant Apple Computers. Defendant David Black is Plaintiff’s former supervisor.1

 Zayed

essentially contends that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, national origin,

religion, and gender in violation of federal and state law. Presently before the Court is Apple’s

motion for summary judgment. Based upon all papers filed to date, the Court grants in part and

denies in part the motion.

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 23
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

 Zayed describes several events as indicative to how her work environment changed, but

fails to specify when each of these events occurred. For purposes of this motion, the Court assumes

that the events occurred shortly after September 11th. 

2

II. BACKGROUND

 Zayed is an Egyptian Arab Muslim woman. Apple hired Zayed as an at-will Engineer 

Scientist II (grade 6) in the Software Operations System (“OS”) division in June 1994. In

September 1999, Zayed transferred into the Final Cut Pro (“FCP”) department within the

Applications Engineering organization at Apple in a grade 7 engineering position, where she was

supervised by Mike Mages (“Mages”). Zayed was responsible for migrating FCP technology to the

Macintosh OSX platform. This entailed testing and writing code, which Zayed performed primarily

alone. In December of 2000 Mages promoted Zayed to a grade 8 in recognition of her achieving the

milestone of migrating FCP to the OSX platform. 

After the migration project, however, Zayed’s employment with Apple allegedly

dramatically changed. More specifically, Zayed contends that her work environment at Apple

changed significantly following the tragic events of September 11, 2001.2 For example, Zayed

details an instance where her colleague asked her questions about whether the Quoran really

instructed Muslims to participate in suicide bombings. On another occasion, one of Zayed's

colleagues allegedly stared at her, stormed off, and slammed her door, allegedly because of that

colleague's opposition to the war in Iraq. Apple also sent out a group email to the FCP group

requesting the citizenship status of each employee to address a copyright issue to which the sender

employee had been assigned. Especially disturbing to Zayed was an incident where an employee

placed red, white, and blue ribbons outside every employee's office door as a symbol of unity and

patriotism. Zayed observed that the ribbons had been placed on everyone's door except her own,

and interpreted this as an act to exclude her based on race, ethnicity, and religion. 

According to Zayed, from the spring of 2002 to September 28, 2004, she was isolated and

marginalized within her practice group; she was denied career opportunities to work on critical

projects; and she observed junior and less experienced male Caucasian non-Arab colleagues receive

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 2 of 23
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

premier assignments and quick promotions. Apple contends, however, that as Zayed’s performance

became more visible to management, it became apparent that Zayed was not completing projects as

quickly as expected and did not work well under pressure.

During the relevant period, Zayed worked on a project called EDL (“Editor Decision List”). 

EDL is a feature in FCP that allows for the assembly and manipulation of movie footage and

cinematic effects within specific frames. According to Zayed, the project was riddled with problems

due to the poor quality of the code. Zayed alleges that throughout the project, she communicated

regularly and proactively with Apple’s Quality Assurance (“QA”) team, and never missed a

deadline. Zayed further alleges that Mages never raised any performance issues with her. 

In contrast to Zayed’s description of the EDL project, Mages observed problems with

Zayed’s performance from the start. Mages contends that Zayed’s attempts to “fix” problems with

the code actually caused additional problems so that the code was worse than it was before Zayed

touched it. Mages further contends that Zayed failed to communicate regularly and proactively with

Apple’s QA team. Mages also observed that Zayed was not well organized and took far longer than

other engineers to accomplish her responsibilities. Mages contends that he communicated his

concerns to Zayed repeatedly, but felt Zayed was resistant to hearing any type of negative or

constructive feedback. Zayed contends that eventually, Mages designated a person by the name of

Harrison as lead of the project, even though Zayed had requested the lead role.

In spring of 2002, Zayed began reporting directly to Defendant David Black (“Black”). By

Zayed's description, she became the subject of unfavorable treatment under Black's management that

was directed at her personally. Black allegedly began to observe problems with Zayed's technical

skills in late 2002 when Zayed worked on a project involving a videodisc unit feature ("VDU

project"). Black contends that even after he explained to Zayed that the entire project depended on

her ability to enhance speed and performance, she exhibited an inability to proactively research the

underlying technology and innovate solutions for the problems she encountered. Upon realizing the

VDU project would not reach its desired result, Zayed allegedly failed to determine how to improve

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 3 of 23
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

 One of these employees was QA Manager Eric Lin ("Lin"). Zayed’s request for an order striking the

declaration of Lin (Docket Item No. 42) is denied. Lin was disclosed as a witness in an interrogatory response as well as

during the deposition of Defendant Black. Zayed’s request to strike Apple’s submission of an unpublished opinion by

Judge Hamilton is granted. Zayed’s and Apple’s respective requests for sanctions are denied.

4

the feature and failed to communicate for several weeks that she was unable to improve it. As a

result, Zayed allegedly missed her deadline for the VDU project and Black eventually stepped in,

successfully re-writing the code to make the feature run faster. Zayed alleges she solved problems

with the VDU project as they arose, developed the user interface by using existing mechanisms, and

followed defined engineering process. Apple contends that even beyond the VDU project, Zayed

consistently failed to complete tasks in a timely and efficient manner, and that the delays in Zayed's

work forced other engineers to perform unscheduled work in order to salvage projects. 

Black also allegedly received complaints from other engineers about Zayed. Black observed

that Zayed appeared unwilling to acknowledge any problems with her work and reacted angrily and

defensively when questioned in peer review meetings. Beginning in 2003, Black repeatedly

received complaints from various employees regarding Zayed.3

 Specifically, Zayed's colleagues

claimed she submitted software claiming it was ready for testing when it was not, and they began to

question Zayed's honesty about the status of her work. Zayed was also allegedly unavailable to

respond to these issues and questions about her work. 

On August 23, 2003, Zayed sent Black an email entitled "Future Direction" in which she

expressed concern about career development and the fact that colleagues were receiving superior

work opportunities in no clear pattern, whereas Zayed was receiving tangential assignments and

ones related to technologies at the end of their life cycle. According to Zayed, Black knew that her

complaints regarding career development, including the email, consistently related to discrimination

and that she was seeking a remedy for the unfair treatment. Zayed states that Black never responded

to this email. 

On December 1, 2003, Zayed received a performance evaluation from Black and Zayed's

second-level manager Brett Halle ("Halle"). The evaluation rated Zayed's performance as "needs

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 4 of 23
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

improvement" based on her failure to follow established procedures for the development process;

her level of productivity; initiative in resolving development issues; and her failure to assume the

responsibility expected of a grade 8 engineer. Black commented that QA staff had been frustrated

with Zayed's lack of honesty and adversarial attitude, and stated that her serious performance issues

would need to be addressed for her to continue in her then-current position on the FCP team. 

However, Zayed describes the performance review as comprised of offensive remarks and

judgments which failed to be substantiated by Black. Zayed claims that Black yelled at her and

pounded on the conference table. Zayed alleges that her evaluation contradicted Apple's policy

regarding the review process. 

Zayed contested her review to HR Manager Heather Ramirez ("Ramirez"), particularly

concerned about the "needs improvement" rating and the comments regarding her lack of honesty. 

Apple contends that at no time while contesting her review did Zayed mention discrimination. 

Ramirez, Black, and Zayed met to discuss her concerns on December 8, 2003, but Zayed was

allegedly unable to specifically refute any statements made in the review. Rather, Zayed allegedly

agreed she could attain three of the four areas for development contained in the review, as they were

part of her normal work responsibilities. With regard to the fourth goal, Zayed allegedly asked

Black how she could enhance her working relationship with QA; Black responded by asking her to

work more proactively with QA. Following this meeting, Black changed the wording in the review

by removing the "lack of honesty" language, but the overall rating remained the same. 

On December 12, 2003, Zayed sent an email to Black stating that she contested the review. 

Zayed claimed: 

I am getting this negative and biased review in retaliation for my continued

documented requests for getting the same chances afforded to other colleagues

(juniors or seniors)...I have not been given my warranted and earned position as well

as my merited raises for ethnic, gender, and age reasons. 

(Declaration of Jessica Perry in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Perry Decl."), Docket

Item No. 33, Exhibit L [December 2003 email].) Zayed informed Ramirez that she would be taking

a medical leave of absence. 

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 5 of 23
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 6

Also on December 12, 2003, Zayed sent an email to Chief Talent Officer Dan Walker

("Walker") conveying the same information as the previous email to Black. Walker referred the

matter to the Employee Relations organization; Apple hired an independent outside consultant,

Nancy Dewey ("Dewey") to investigate Zayed's concerns. Dewey did not begin her investigation

until Zayed could participate, which was not until she returned from medical leave. On December

16, 2003, Zayed filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC, detailing the allegations of

retaliation, hostile work environment, and discrimination she suffered under Black's management. 

Zayed returned to work in March 2004. Dewey allegedly tried to arrange a meeting with

Zayed to investigate her concerns; Zayed refused to attend or provide any additional information,

stating that all communications should be directed to her counsel. However, by Zayed's account, she

tried to be accommodating and professional, but Dewed did not include her in the investigation. 

Zayed allegedly suggested that Dewey provide written requests or questions for her to complete. It

is undisputed that Zayed was never interviewed. Dewey proceeded with the investigation and

concluded that Zayed had not been the subject of discrimination, retaliation, or any other

inappropriate conduct. 

On March 10, 2004, Zayed met with HR Director Judy Goodson ("Goodson"). At this

meeting, Zayed allegedly acknowledged that she understood Black's expectations for her and her

deadlines. Zayed claims she told Black that if he wanted to communicate with her, it was to be in

writing. Apple contends Zayed was continually absent following this meeting, missing at least 13

full days over the next two months and some partial days as well. Zayed's absences allegedly

resulted in uncompleted assignments which impacted the abilities of other team members to meet

their own deadlines. Zayed admits that she did take several sick days. However, she contends that

Black assigned her an aggressive schedule, that she met all of her project deadlines, and that she

provided weekly status reports as requested. 

On May 25, 2004, Halle informed Zayed that she would be reassigned to a specific unit test

development position in FCP. This position was assigned grade level 7, one grade below Zayed's

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 6 of 23
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

previous position. Apple contends this decision was made based upon the needs of the team and

done to place Zayed in a position that better matched her skills and experience. While the grade

level changed, Zayed's compensation, office assignment, and managerial reporting structure were

not affected by her reassignment. Zayed asserts that this reassignment was a demotion in response

to her refusal to take a second sick disability leave. In fact, Zayed asserts that Black pressured her to

take sick leave by yelling at her in a demeaning and intimidating manner and pounding his fist on

the table. Black challenged the legitimacy of Zayed's sick days, and allegedly instituted an

attendance policy applicable only to her. Zayed eventually took a second disability leave from June

9, 2004 to September 7, 2004. 

Just before Zayed took the second disability leave, Zayed was told that if she did not accept

the new position at grade 7 level, Apple would conclude she was resigning. Zayed refused to accept

the position even though she was informed that her salary would not be lowered. Halle reiterated to

Zayed that Apple would conclude she was resigning. While Zayed was on her disability leave, she

was informed by Goodson that her grade 8 position had been eliminated and the grade 7 position had

been filled. Goodson also informed her that she would have three additional weeks to locate another

job within Apple once she returned to work. If she could not locate another position, she would be

eligible for severance pay. According to Zayed, she was effectively prevented from pursuing typical

networking efforts to secure a new job. She was unable to locate another position and her

employment was terminated on September 28, 2004. Zayed rejected the severance offer in favor of

filing the current lawsuit. She currently works as a Senior Software Engineer at another company,

earning 20% more than she earned at Apple. 

Zayed asserts twelve claims against Apple: (1) race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981;

(2) race discrimination under Title VII; (3) race discrimination under the Fair Employment and

Housing Act (“FEHA”); (4) national origin discrimination under FEHA; (5) religious discrimination

under FEHA; (6) gender discrimination under FEHA; (7) failure to maintain a harassment-free

environment under FEHA; (8) retaliation under FEHA; (9) failure to promote under Title VII and

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 7 of 23
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

FEHA; (10) slander; (11) libel; and (12) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

III. STANDARDS

Summary judgment is proper "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). The purpose of summary judgment "is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims

or defenses." Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-324 (1986).

The moving party "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the

basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any' which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323. If this burden is met, the

moving party is then entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the non-moving party fails to

make a sufficient showing on an essential element with respect to which the non-moving party bears

the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 322-23.

The non-moving party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). The non-moving party cannot defeat the moving party's properly

supported motion for summary judgment simply by alleging some factual dispute between the

parties. To preclude the entry of summary judgment, the non-moving party must bring forth

material facts, i.e., "facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law . . .

Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The opposing party "must do more than simply show that there

is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio,

475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). 

The court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, including

questions of credibility and of the weight to be accorded particular evidence. Masson v. New

Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 520 (1991) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255); Matsushita,

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 8 of 23
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

475 U.S. at 588; T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). It is

the court's responsibility "to determine whether the 'specific facts' set forth by the nonmoving party,

coupled with undisputed background or contextual facts, are such that a rational or reasonable jury

might return a verdict in its favor based on that evidence." T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 631. 

"[S]ummary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is 'genuine,' that is if the

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson,

477 U.S. at 248. However, "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of

fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita, 475 U.S. at

587.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Race Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and FEHA

Apple addresses Zayed's first three claims for race discrimination collectively. Apple further

addresses race discrimination in two parts: discriminatory failure to promote and discrimination with

respect to other aspects of Zayed’s employment. The Court addresses each argument in turn. 

1. Prima Facie Case for Discriminatry Failure to Promote

The analysis for a claim of employment discrimination under FEHA parallels that of Title

VII. Levy v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1334, 1343 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988);

see also L.A. County Dept. v. Civil Service Comm'n, 8 Cal. App. 4th 273, 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)

(stating that in employment discrimination cases, California courts have frequently adopted the

standards used in proving intentional discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act). To

establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must meet following factors: (1) plaintiff

is a member of a protected class, (2) plaintiff applied for, but did not receive, the job or promotion in

question, (3) a person of comparable qualifications outside the protected class received the position,

and (4) plaintiff was qualified for the position. Levy, 199 Cal. App. 3d at 1343-1344. 

Apple first contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on the racial discrimination

claims because Zayed cannot establish her prima facie case to show discriminatory failure to

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 9 of 23
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

promote. Specifically, Apple contends that Zayed cannot show she applied for specific promotions

nor that she was substantially more qualified for the position sought than the person who received it. 

((Defendants’ Motion ("Mot."), Docket Item No. 32, at 14:12-26.) 

Zayed responds by pointing out that the "requisite degree of proof necessary to establish a

prima facie case for Title VII...on summary judgment is minimal and does not even rise to the level

of a preponderance of the evidence." Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal Inc., 292 F.3d 654,

659 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added) (quoting Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.

1994)). Zayed contends that each element necessary to prove discriminatory failure to promote has

been satisfied. With regard to Apple's assertion that she must have applied for specific positions

rather than manifested a general interest in being promoted, Zayed claims that she continually

applied for positions beginning in 2001. (Plaintiff’s Opposition ("Opp'n"), Docket Item No. 46, at

18:9-10.) Zayed stated in her deposition: 

Q: How many engineering manager positions did you actively see in the last two

years of your employment within Final Cut Pro? 

A: I would say three or four. 

(McCoy Declaration, Docket Item No. 45, Exhibit A [Deposition of Nancy Zayed ("Zayed Dep.")] at

294:24-295:2.) Zayed also testified at her deposition that she applied for two positions outside of

FCP, one in the Quick Time Group and another in the I Photo Group. (Zayed Dep. at 286:21-25 &

287:11-13.) The Court finds these statements in Zayed’s deposition are sufficient to establish a

prima facie case that she applied for but did not receive promotions at Apple. 

With regard to the third and fourth elements of Zayed’s prima facie case, the Court finds

Zayed has raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the persons promoted over her were more

qualified than she. Zayed claims that a number of non-Arab, non-Muslim, non-Egyptian males with

less experience and less seniority in FCP were promoted during the period she sought and applied

for promotions. (Opp'n at 18:15-22.) Specifically, Zayed names David Black, Mike Marinkovich,

Pete Steinheuer, and Gio Angelino as persons promoted as engineering managers in FCP during her

tenure. (Zayed Dep. at 297:9-24.) Apple points out that Zayed is not aware of the technical or

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 10 of 23
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 11

management background of any persons promoted and thus has no basis for asserting they were less

qualified then her. (Mot. at 15:4-6.) However, Zayed does indicate in her deposition that some of

the persons promoted during her tenure were hired after her. (Zayed Dep. at 297:9-17.) The Court

finds that there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether Zayed was more qualified than the

promoted colleagues. Because of her seniority in FCP and past promotions, a reasonable person

could find that a discriminatory pattern existed in promoting persons in FCP with less experience

than Zayed to managerial positions. 

2. Discrimination in Zayed’s Employment Aside from Failure to Promote

With regard to discrimination in other areas of Zayed's employment, Apple characterizes

Zayed's claim as consisting of Black failing to allow her to participate in interviews or customer site

visits, assigning her tangential projects, and refusing to interact socially with her. (Mot. at 16:20-

22.) Apple argues that none of Black's alleged conduct is actionable because it does not constitute

substantial or material adverse action taken that affected the terms and conditions of her

employment, as required under California law. (Mot. at 16:23-17:11.) Zayed responds that she was

singled out for different treatment starting in 2001. Specifically, her supervisors refused to present

her with a ten-year anniversary award, as had been given to her male counterparts; 

 that she was excluded from activities and opportunities necessary for advancement that her nonArab American colleagues participated in. (Opp'n at 23:9-14.) More specifically, Zayed claims that

she was deprived of: (1) opportunities to visit customer sites, (2) one-on-one support, and (3)

mentoring opportunities, including tutoring in code of the FCP application. Zayed claims that

developing expertise in this area is precisely what she needed in order to advance to a managerial

position. (Opp'n at 23:19-23.) Moreover, Zayed claims the differing treatment prevented her from

receiving proper feedback on her work, placing her at a disadvantage to others in FCP. (Opp'n at

23:28-24:2.) 

The Court agrees with Apple that Black's refusal to interact with Zayed socially cannot

constitute an adverse employment action with a substantial and material effect. (See Brooks v. City

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 11 of 23
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 12

of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 929 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that "[b]ecause an employer cannot force

employees to socialize with one another, ostracism suffered at the hands of coworkers cannot

constitute an adverse employment action"). Further, the Court finds that the failure of Zayed's

supervisors to present her with her ten-year award is not adverse employment action. Zayed does

not point to any evidence in the record proving that this event affected the terms or conditions of her

employment. 

However, the Court does not agree with Apple's assertion that an adverse employment action

requires a change in pay, benefits, and level of responsibility (Mot. at 17:2-6), nor that Zayed is

required to specifically identify customer site visits or interviews from which she was excluded. 

With regard to the site visits, Zayed testified in her deposition that she would:

ask [Black] to take [her] with him on-site visits so [she] would get an exposure to

how [their] clients and customers use the application and have a feel for the need and

be able to develop better or to suggest features, and [Black] would promise that he

would take [her], and specifically to Disney and Pixar, but he never did, and he would

take Helena [Ju], he would take others. 

(Zayed Dep. at 91:15-23.) Zayed further testified that Black would give one-on-one support to other

colleagues, such as Helena Ju, multiple times per day to show them "how to get things done." 

(Zayed Dep. at 91:7-12.) Zayed alleges that she would request that Black give her the "same kind of

help" as he would for her other colleagues, but he would never follow through on his promises to

assist her. (Zayed Dep. at 91:13-15.) At the same time, Zayed's colleagues would allegedly receive

mentoring or training in code of the FCP application. She testified that as a result of the

opportunities, they would "know the different parts, and the different technologies, how...they make

changes." (Zayed Dep. at 80:16-18.) 

The California Supreme Court has recently stated that "adverse treatment that is reasonably

likely to impair a reasonable employee's job performance or prospects for advancement or promotion

falls within the reach of the antidiscrimination provisions of [FEHA]." Graves v. Johnson Control

World Services, Inc. 2006 WL 618796 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36

Cal.4th 1028, 1055 (2005). Zayed has raised a triable issue of material fact regarding whether

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 12 of 23
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 13

Black's allegedly differential treatment put her at a disadvantaged position in being promoted and

constituted an adverse employment action. 

With regard to the tangential assignments, Apple argues that Zayed cannot show that she

received objectively less favorable assignments than her peers and that particular job assignments

have no material or substantial adverse effect on her employment. (Mot. at 17:15-17.) On the other

hand, Zayed contends that toward the end of her tenure she noticed that younger members of FCP

were receiving the types of assignments she had been attempting to get. (Zayed Dep. at 151:2-13.) 

Specifically, they would receive assignments involving new features and the types of assignments

that would "give [them] exposure...[and] add to [their] expertise and...knowledge." (Zayed Dep. at

151:7-10.) Whether Zayed's treatment may be perceived as amounting to a change in her level of

responsibility and whether it constitutes an adverse employment action are issues that should be

decided by a jury. As such, the Court finds that Zayed has established a prima facie case for

discriminatory failure to promote. 

3. Establishing Pretext or Discriminatory Intent

Apple argues that even if Zayed could establish a prima facie case for discrimination in

failing to be promoted and in other aspects of her employment, she cannot establish that Apple's

legitimate reasons for her lack of promotion and treatment are pretextual. (Mot. at 15:17-24 &

17:27-18:7.) Apple gives many explanations for Zayed's treatment. With regard to the failure to

promote, Apple contends that despite her failure to actually apply for promotions, Zayed was simply

not qualified for management positions because of problems with her technical skills,

communication, and teamwork. (Mot. at 15:24-27.) In other aspects of Zayed's employment, Black

did not invite Zayed on site visits because the customers visited did not have technical issues

uniquely related to Zayed's responsibilities. (Declaration of David Black in Support of Motion for

Summary Judgment ("Black Decl."), Docket Item No. 36, ¶ 16.) Black also contends that he

assigned Zayed to projects that he thought matched her technical skills and expertise. Moreover,

Apple argues that Black and Halle, her superiors who gave the negative performance evaluation,

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 13 of 23
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 14

were not aware of Zayed's race, national origin, or religion prior to the lawsuit. (Black Decl. ¶ 31;

Declaration of Brett Halle in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Halle Decl."), Docket

Item No. 35, ¶ 7; Mot. at 16:6-8 & 18:10-11.) 

In response, Zayed emphasizes that she personally witnessed other engineers causing bug or

software errors that resulted in a delayed project schedule. (Declaration of Nancy Zayed in Support

of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Zayed Decl."), Docket Item No. 44, ¶¶ 20-21.) 

While Apple contends that these were problems areas for Zayed, Zayed states that her male,

Caucasian, non-Arab engineers causing the same problems were never transferred, demoted, or

disciplined as she was. (Zayed Decl. ¶ 21.) Furthermore, Zayed contends that none of her projects

fell behind schedule due to any bug or software errors attributable to code she authorized. (Zayed

Decl. ¶¶ 15-18, 20.) Zayed also contends that Apple cannot justify its treatment of her by stating

that she finished projects of poor quality because many of the projects assigned to her were filled

with bugs and of poor quality at the outset, such that no other person wanted to work on them. 

(Zayed Dep. at 99:4-6; Opp'n at 20:3-5.) 

Zayed also disputes Apple's contention that Black and Halle were not aware of her race prior

to the filing of this lawsuit. First, Zayed points out that she was originally recruited as an Arabic

localizer at Apple, and that her personnel file would have disclosed this. (Zayed Dep. at 50:3-9.) 

Second, she points out that her appearance and name are non-white (Zayed Decl. ¶ 48; Opp'n at

21:17-18.) Third, Zayed stated in her deposition that it was "common knowledge" among her

supervisors, including Black, Mages, Harrison, and Halle, that she traveled each year to Egypt to see

family. (Zayed Decl. ¶ 24.) In one instance, Harrison was instructed by HR to speak to Zayed

concerning potential problems that might arise with regard to Zayed's ethnicity shortly after

September 11, 2001. (Zayed Dep. at 37:9-14.) Harrison also made an international long distance

call to Zayed while on one of her annual vacations to Egypt. (Zayed Decl. ¶ 25.) The Court finds

that Zayed has produced enough evidence from which a jury could find that Apple and Zayed's

supervisors knew of her race. 

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 14 of 23
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 15

In sum, the Court denies Apple's motion for summary judgment with regard to her first three

claims alleging racial discrimination. Zayed has produced sufficient evidence to establish her prima

facie case, and raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Apple's explanations are

pretextual. 

B. Discrimination on the Basis of National Origin and Religion under FEHA

Apple's arguments with regard to Zayed's claims of discrimination on the basis of national

origin and religion are essentially identical to those made against the racial discrimination claims. 

For the reasons set forth above in Section A, the Court denies Apple's motion for summary judgment

with regard to these claims. 

C. Gender Discrimination under FEHA

With regard to gender discrimination, Apple again repeats its argument made in support of

granting summary judgment for race discrimination. However, Apple also argues that this claim

fails because Zayed admitted that Helena Ju, a female colleague, received the developmental

opportunities that Zayed alleges she was denied. (Mot. at 19:23-25.) Because the alleged lack of

developmental opportunities is not the sole basis of Zayed's discrimination claim and for the reasons

set forth in Section A, the Court denies Apple's motion for summary judgment with regard to the

gender discrimination claim. 

D. Failure to Promote Claim

Apple contends that Zayed's failure to promote claim must fail, as it is duplicative of the

discrimination claims. As stated in Section A, the Court finds that Zayed has established her prima

facie case with regard to discriminatory failure to promote. The Court denies Apple's motion for

summary judgment on this claim. 

E. Retaliation

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under FEHA, the plaintiff must show: (1) he or 

she engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment

action, and (3) there exists a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 15 of 23
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 16

action. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042 (2005). Apple contends that Zayed's

claim fails because she cannot establish any of the three elements. 

According to Apple, the August 2003 email to Black was not a protected activity under Cal.

Gov't Code § 12940(f). (Mot. at 20:20-21.) In addition, Apple contends the negative performance

evaluation and reassignment that occurred after she sent the email do not rise to the level of an

adverse employment action that had a substantial and material effect on the terms and conditions of

her employment. With regard to the last element, Apple contends that there is no causal connection

because too much time lapsed between both the August and December 2003 emails and the allegedly

adverse actions. (Mot. at 22:22-24.) Apple also argues that there are legitimate reasons for the

changes in her employment after the email, and that Zayed cannot establish pretext and retaliatory

motive. (Mot. at 23:18-19.) 

Zayed responds by pointing to three separate occasions in which she raised the issue of

discrimination to Apple: (1) the August 2003 email, (2) the EEOC complaint filed in December

2004, and (3) the present lawsuit filed in May 2004. (Opp'n at 24:14-18.) Zayed argues that Apple's

adverse action consisted of the negative performance review at her next scheduled review, four

months after the August 2003 email; her subsequent demotion in May 2004; and termination in

September 2004. (Opp'n at 24:28-25:3.) Zayed seeks to establish causation between the protected

activity and adverse action with circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that her negative evaluation

arose at the first scheduled performance review four months later. (Opp'n at 25:4-13.) In

responding to Apple's assertions regarding pretext, Zayed argues that proximity in time helps

support the existence of pretext. Further, Zayed argues that Apple cannot substantiate its claims that

Zayed lacked technical skill, and that Apple failed to follow its own policies concerning discipline

and employee reviews. (Opp'n at 26:11-15.) 

1. Zayed's August 2003 Email

Apple argues that Zayed's August 2003 email was not a protected activity because it did not

mention discrimination. (Mot. at 21:15-17.) On the other hand, Zayed contends that "there was no

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 16 of 23
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 17

question that Black knew [her] complaints had been consistently related to discrimination, and that

[she] was seeking a remedy for [her] unfair treatment." (Zayed Decl. ¶ 28.) Zayed also stated that

with regard to the numerous times she spoke with Black and Mages about her career development

and future at Apple: 

When I expressed my concern that I was being treated unfairly regarding assignments

and promotions, I understood these conversations to be about the disparity between

my experience as an Egyptian, Arab, Muslim, woman, and the opportunities that were

being handed out to my male, Caucasian, non-Arab colleagues in no discernable

pattern. As a result of these conversations, I felt an increasing hostility directed at me

because of my race, gender, nationality, and religion. 

(Zayed Decl. ¶ 26.) 

The Court is not persuaded by Zayed's argument that the August 2003 email could

reasonably be construed as protected activity relating to her allegations of discrimination. In

examining the email, Zayed refers to her career development, the tangential assignments given to her

compared to her colleagues' opportunities, and overall low job satisfaction. (Perry Decl., Exhibit I

[August 2003 email].) The Court recognizes that this email may have contained an implicit

reference to discrimination, but without any specific language complaining of discrimination the

email is nothing more than a complaint about unfair treatment. The Ninth Circuit has stated that an

employee's statement cannot be opposed to an unlawful employment practice unless it "refers to

some practice by the employer that is allegedly unlawful." EEOC v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720

F.2d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 1983). The Third Circuit has also adopted a similar rationale regarding

how specific an employee's opposition must be to support a prima facie case of retaliation. In

Barber v. CSX Distrib. Serv., 68 F.3d 694, 701-702 (3d Cir. 1995), the Court held that plaintiff's

letter could not constitute the requisite protected conduct for a prima facie case of retaliation when

the letter merely complained about unfair treatment in general, without specifically complaining

about age discrimination, and expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that another employee received

the promotion in question. 

To the extent that Apple's motion contests Zayed's claim of retaliation for writing the August

2003 email to Black entitled "Future Direction," the Court grants Apple's summary judgment motion

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 17 of 23
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 18

because this email cannot reasonably be construed as protected activity. 

2. Zayed's December 2003 Email

Apple contends it could not have retaliated for the email sent to Black following Zayed's

negative performance evaluation because the allegedly adverse action occurred too far after the

allegedly protected activity. (Mot. at 22:22-23:2.) In the December email, Zayed contested the

negative performance evaluation given earlier that month and stated that she believed she "ha[d] not

been given [her] warranted and earned position as well as [her] merited raises for ethnic, gender, and

age reasons." (Perry Decl., Exhibit L [December 2003 email].) Unlike the previous email, the Court

finds this email is sufficiently specific to be an opposition to an unlawful employment practice. 

With regard to adverse action and pretext, Apple makes parallel arguments to those made

against the claims for race discrimination. For the reasons listed above in Section A, the Court finds

that there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether Zayed suffered an adverse employment action

after the December 2003 email, and whether Apple's legitimate explanations for her treatment are

pretext. 

The Court further finds that the length of time between the December 2003 email and

Zayed's reassignment in May 2004 were sufficiently close in time to support her prima facie case of

retaliation. Apple cites many cases outside the Ninth Circuit for the proposition that mere temporal

proximity cannot support causation unless the two events are very close in time. (See Mot. at 23:1-

14.) However, the Ninth Circuit has not adopted a bright line rule regarding how much time will

permit an inference of causation. See Bell v. Clackamas County, 341 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2003). 

This Court finds the time between protected activity and the allegedly adverse action are sufficiently

close such that a jury may find that Zayed's reassignment and other treatment were in retaliation for

her December 2003 email. Insofar as Apple argues that summary judgment is appropriate regarding

retaliation for the December 2003 email, the Court denies Apple's motion. 

3. Zayed's Lawsuit

Zayed filed the instant lawsuit in May 2004. Shortly thereafter, she was allegedly subjected

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 18 of 23
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 19

to an adverse employment action: on May 25, 2004, she was reassigned to a specific unit test

development position in FCP, which was one grade level lower than her previous position.

Ultimately, she was terminated on September 28, 2004. This evidence is sufficient to raise a triable

issue of fact.

F. Failure to Prevent Harassment Claim

Apple contends that Zayed's claim for failure to prevent harassment must fail because she

cannot state an underlying claim for either harassment or discrimination. (Mot. at 24:23-25:3.) 

Apple contends that "[a]n employer that maintains policies and undertakes affirmative programs to

prevent discrimination cannot be liable for failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA." (Mot. at

25:5-6.) 

While the Court acknowledges that Apple has implemented policies to prevent

discrimination and makes no determination as to the reasonableness of these policies, the claim for

failure to prevent harassment should not be dismissed on summary judgment because this Court has

found the underlying discrimination should proceed. This result is supported by the cases cited by

Apple in its motion for the proposition that Apple's reasonable measures to prevent discrimination

prohibit a finding of liability for failure to prevent. (See Mot. at 25:4-16.) Apple cited cases in

which each court granted summary judgment on the failure to prevent claims when it also dismissed

the underlying discrimination or harassment claim. Because there is a triable issue of fact regarding

whether Apple discriminated against Zayed, the Court finds a genuine issue of fact exists regarding

Apple's alleged failure to prevent. 

G. Defamation

To prevail on a claim of defamation in California, the plaintiff must show an intentional

publication of a statement of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or

which causes special damage. Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal. App. 4th 637, 645 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). 

Zayed's claims of slander and libel are comprised of two statements in her performance evaluation:

one statement describes her as having an adversarial attitude that annoyed and disrupted team

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 19 of 23
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 20

members' work, and the other statement describes her as dishonest. (Mot. at 26:11-15; Perry Decl.,

Exhibit J [Performance Evaluation].) Apple contends the statements are not actionable for four

independent reasons. First, Apple cites to black letter law that "unless an employer's performance

evaluation falsely accuses an employee of criminal conduct, lack of integrity, dishonesty,

incompetence or reprehensible personal characteristics or behavior," it cannot be defamation. 

Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal. App. 4th 958, 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). Apple argues that

remarks about Zayed's adversarial attitude and being annoying do not meet this standard. (Mot. at

27:1-2.) Second, Apple contends that there is no publication beyond Zayed's managers and HR to

satisfy the prima facie case. Third, Apple contends the statements are privileged because they were

made in the context of a performance evaluation and are just opinions. (Mot. at 27:9-10, 27:26-28,

& 28:9-10.) Fourth, Apple contends the statements were true, and that truth is an absolute defense to

defamation. (Mot. at 28:25-29:2.) 

Zayed responds by arguing that the statements were defamatory as a matter of law for two

reasons: first, statements which call into question plaintiff's integrity are clearly defamatory, and

second, the "lack of honesty" statement was a statement of fact. (Opp'n at 29:9-17.) Zayed argues

that the statements were not mere recitations of someone's feelings and were not preceded by any

statement qualifying or limiting the statement as QA's opinion. (Opp'n at 29:15-19.) With regard to

whether the statements were privileged, Zayed claims that Apple mischaracterizes the number of

people to whom the statement was published. (Opp'n at 30:2-3.) Zayed points out that oral

communications surround personnel reviews and that these reviews are reviewed by other persons in

the company. Zayed also believes that this performance review may have been read or discussed

with other departments of Apple, to whom Zayed applied for a position but was denied. (Opp'n at

30:6-7.) 

The Court is persuaded by Apple's arguments that Zayed's defamation claim cannot survive

summary judgment. California courts have strongly disfavored libel suits based on employee

communications in employee performance reviews. See Jensen v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 14 Cal.

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 20 of 23
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 21

App. 4th 958, 964 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (stating that evaluations serve the important business

purpose of documenting the employer's hiring, promotion, discipline and firing practices, and serve

as a vehicle for informing the employee of what management expects, how the employee measures

up, and what must be done to obtain wage increases, promotions, and other recognition). 

The statements in the performance evaluation are clearly opinion and not defamatory as a

matter of law. Furthermore, to the extent that the statements question Zayed's integrity and honesty,

the Court finds that the statements were privileged and were made in the course of communications

intended to better Zayed and Apple's working relationship. See Cuenca v. Safeway San Francisco

Employees Fed. Credit Union, 180 Cal. App. 3d 985, 996 (stating that "[c]ommunications made in a

commercial setting relating to the conduct of an employee have been held to fall squarely within the

qualified privilege for communications to interested persons," defined as a recipient with a common

interest); see also Chambers v. American Trans Air, Inc., 577 N.E.2d 612, 615 (stating the qualified

privilege defense to defamation arises from the "necessity for full and unrestricted communication

on matters in which the parties have a common interest or duty"). 

Further, there is no evidence that Apple published the allegedly defamatory statements. The

only persons who learned of the statements did so in the course of their employment at Apple, and

the persons who may not have learned of the statements in the course of performing their duties were

informed by Zayed herself. Zayed does not substantiate her claim that employees in other

departments at Apple learned of the statement, and merely concludes that the reason Zayed did not

find another job within Apple must have been these allegedly defamatory statements. The Court

also notes that Zayed was able to find another position outside of Apple following her termination;

there is no basis to believe that anyone other than the persons Zayed told knew about the evaluation. 

For the reasons listed above, the Court grants Apple's motion for summary judgment on the

defamation claims. 

H. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

In order to prevail in the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), Zayed

must prove that the conduct was extreme and outrageous. Yurick v. Superior Court, 209 Cal. App.

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 21 of 23
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 22

3d 1116, 1123 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). The conduct must be "so extreme as to exceed all bounds of

that usually tolerated in a civilized community. Cervantez v. J.C. Penny Co., 24 Cal.3d 579, 593

(1979). 

Because the Court is permitting the discrimination and a portion of the retaliation claims to

proceed, the Court denies summary judgment on the IIED claim as well. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Apple’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and

denied in part. Specifically, the Court denies Apple's motion for summary judgment on the

following claims: discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, and gender; failure to

prevent harassment; failure to promote; and IIED. With regard to the retaliation claim, the Court

grants summary adjudication that there was no actionable retaliation as a result of Zayed’s August

2003 email, but finds that there are genuine issues of fact regarding whether Zayed retaliated after

Zayed sent the December 2003 email and after Zayed filed the instant lawsuit. The Court grants

summary judgment on the defamation claims for slander and libel. Lastly, Apple’s “Motion For

Sanctions, And Objecting To Evidence And Moving To Strike Evidence Submitted By Plaintiff

Nancy Zayed In Opposition To Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” is denied. 

Dated: April 4, 2006

04cv1787sj

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 22 of 23
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Jessica Perry jperry@orrick.com

Joseph Liburt jliburt@orrick.com

Waukeen Q McCoy mccoylawsf@yahoo.com

Dated: April 5, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:__/s/JW Chambers_______

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 68 Filed 04/05/06 Page 23 of 23