Filed 1/21/16 Webb v. Cox Communications California CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CATANA WEBB, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFOR NIA, LLC et al ., Defendants and Respondents. D067243

(Super. Ct. No. 37

- 2012

- 00083770

- CU

- WT

- CTL)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Katherine A. Bacal, Judge. Affirmed.

Eisenberg & Associates, Michael B. Eis enberg and Joseph S. Socher for Plaintiff and Appellants. Ferris & Britton, Michael R. Weinstein and W. Lee Biddle for Defendants and Respondents.2 INTRODUCTION Catana Webb appeals from a summary judgment in favor of Cox Communications California, LLC (C ox) and Julisan Jones o n Webb ' s second amended complaint (complaint) , which alleged causes of action for age discrimination, age harassment, and
retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)

. Webb contends we must reverse the judgment because there are triable issues of material fact as to whether Cox discharged her , Jones harasse d her, and Cox failed to rehire her because of her age

. She also contends there are triable issues of material fa ct as to whether Cox failed to rehire her in retaliation for her filing an age discrimination and age harassment complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Hous ing (DFEH)

. We are unpersuaded by Webb ' s contention s and affirm the judgment.
BACKGRO UND Cox employed Webb in various customer service positions from August 1996 until her discharge , effect ive March 2012. At the time of her discharge, Webb worked with a group p rovid ing customer service to Cox ' s business customers in San Diego

. At least 9 0 percent of her job duties involved handling straightforward billing calls , which the parties refer to as Tier 1 calls

. In 2011 , Cox decided to consolidate and reorganize its operations, including rerouting its business customer service c alls through a national call center to offices outside of California. In early 2012, Cox began rerouting its San Diego T ier 1 calls through the national call center. Concomitantly , Cox decided to lay off the San Diego3

employees whose primary duties involved handling Tier 1 calls. Specifically, Cox laid off Webb, then age 54 , and an other employee, then age 23. Cox planned to lay off a third employee , t hen age 33, who also primarily hand l ed Tier 1 calls . However, Cox opted to temporarily retain the employee because t he employee was bilingual and had experience handling complex disconnect calls. Of the remaining employees in Webb ' s work group , three had no responsibility for handling Tier 1 call s and four others handl ed Tier 1 calls as needed , but primarily handled mo re complex calls , referred to by the parties as Tier 2 or 3 calls

. Nonetheless, w ithin 10 months of Webb ' s discharg e , Cox had laid off these employees as well. During the last four years of Webb ' s employment, Jones supervised her. Jones regarded Webb a s a good employee and Webb admitted Jones never gave her an unfair performance review or otherwise unfairly criticized her performance. In fact, while under Jones ' s supervision, Webb consistently received year

- end merit pay increases based
on Jones ' s appr aisal of Webb ' s work performance. In addition, a fter Webb learned Cox was going to lay her off , Jones assisted Webb in identifying other position openings within Cox to which Webb could apply. Although Webb acknowledged she was happy working for Jones, W ebb nonetheless claimed Jones harassed her with ageist remarks. Webb identified five such remarks. First, a bout a year after Jones began supervising Webb, Jones remarked " [ a ] ge before beauty, my dear " as both she and Webb were entering an elevator. Seco nd, a t least a year before Webb ' s discharge, at a staff birthday party for Webb and another employee, Jones observed that Webb was now the oldest member of Jones ' s team and4

another employe e was now the youngest member. Third, s ometime within a year or two before Webb ' s discharge, while she and Jones review ed a recorded customer call in which Webb did not remember the answer to a customer ' s question and had to reference some paperwork, Jones remarked to Webb, " Well, your Alzheimer ' s must be kicking in. "
Fo urth, s ometime within a year of her discharge, as Webb was returning to work from a break, Jones saw Webb and remarked, " Oh, girl. You ' re moving slow. " Finally, about six to eight months before Webb ' s discharge, Jones commented that Webb needed to recolo r her hair because her gray roots were showing. Jones denie d making these remarks. Webb further claims Jone s tolerated ageist remarks from other employees

. Specifically, when one employee complained in front of Jones and Webb that another employee was " senile " and " needed to retire, " Jones did not reprimand him. Instead, Jones laughed and said, " You shouldn ' t say that. " Similarly, when the same offending employee described yet another employee as " senile, " Jones jokingly told him to " stop it. " The off

ending employee denied making these remarks.
A fter learning of her discharge, Webb submitted resumes for over 50 positions within Cox. For various reasons, she was not hired for any of the positions. In several instances, Cox cancelled the position open ings and did not hire anyone for them. In a few instances, Webb submitted her resume after Cox had identified an initial candidate pool from earlier submissions. In four instances, the position openings required relocation to another state, which Webb wa s unwilling to do. Of the remaining position5

openings, either Webb did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position or Cox hired others it deemed better qualified than Webb. 1 Approximately six months after the effective date of her discharge , W ebb filed a complaint with the DFEH alleging Cox discharged her and Jones harassed her because of her age

. Eighteen months later, Webb filed a second DFEH complaint alleging Cox fail ed to rehire her because of her age and because she filed the first D FE H complaint

. The recruiters within Cox who reviewed and rejected Webb ' s applications for rehire denied know ing her age or that she had filed a DFEH complaint. The instant action alleges causes of action against Cox for age discrimination and retaliation an d a cause of action against both Cox and Jones for age harassment. Cox and
Jones moved for summary judgment or, alternative ly , summary adjudication of Webb ' s causes of action . As to Webb ' s age discrimination cause of action, Cox argued Webb could not est ablish a prima facie case of discrimination nor could she establish Cox ' s business reasons for discharging her were pretextual. As to Webb ' s age harassment cause of action, Cox and Jones argued Webb could not establish Jones ' s alleged ageist remarks

were sufficient ly severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Webb ' s employment and create an abusive working environment . As to Webb ' s retaliation cause of action, Cox argued Webb could not establish a causal connection between the filing of her first DFEH

1 Webb 's last three resume submittals falsely stated she had been employed with Cox as a senior marketing analyst from 1996 to 2012. Webb denies she was trying to mislead Cox about her former job title. Rather, she claims she was simply stating she had the experience and qualifications for a marketing analyst position. The record does not show Cox based any of its decisions not to rehire Webb on resume inaccuracies.6

complaint and her failure to obtain any of the position s wit hin Cox for which she applied. The trial court largely agreed with Cox ' s and Jones ' s arguments and granted their motion

. DISCUSSION

" On appeal after a motion for summary judgment has been gran ted, we review the record de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposition papers except that to which objections have been made and sustained. [Citation.] Under California ' s traditional rules, we determine with respect to eac h cause of action whether the defendant seeking summary judgment has conclusively negated a necessary element of the plaintiff ' s case, or has demonstrated that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial, such t hat the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. " ( Guz v. Bechtel Nat ional, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 ( Guz ). )
I Age Discrimination Cause of Action

A FEHA generally prohibits an employer from refusing to hire or from discharging a
perso n because of the person ' s age. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) " In cases alleging employment discrimination, we analyze the trial court ' s decision on a motion for summary judgment using a three

- step process that is based on the burden

- shifting test that was established by the United States Supreme Court for trials of employment discrimination claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 [ McDonnell Douglas ]

. " ( Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830,7

860 ( Serri ).) " [ U]nder the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a ' prima facie case, ' the components of which vary depending upon the nature of the claim, but typically require evidence that ' " (1) [the plaintiff] was a member of a protected class, (2) [the plaintiff] was qualified for the position he [or she] sought or was performing competently in the position ... held, (3) [the plaintiff] suffered an adverse employment action, such as termin ation, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance [that] suggests discriminatory motive. " ' [Citation.] ' A satisfactory showing to this effect gives rise to a presumption of discrimination which, if unanswered by the employe r, is mandatory

— it requires judgment for the plaintiff. ' [Citation s .] However, under the second step of the test, ' the employer may dispel the presumption merely by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action. [Citation .] At that point the presumption disappears. ' [Citation.] Under the third step of the test, the ' plaintiff must ... have the opportunity to attack the employer ' s proffered reasons as pretexts for discrimination, or to offer any other evidence of discrim inatory motive. ' " ( Serri , supra , at pp. 860

- 861.) This framework is modified in the summary judgment context: " ' the employer, as the moving party, has the initial burden to present admissible evidence showing either that one or more elements of plain tiff ' s prima facie case is lacking or that the adverse employment action was based upon legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors. ' " ( Serri , supra , 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 861.) " In this context, ' legitimate ' reasons ' are reasons that

are facially unrelated t o prohibited bias , and which, if true, would thus preclude a finding8

of discrimination

. ' " ( Reeves v. MV Transp ortation, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 666, 673 ( Reeves ).) " If the employer meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the employee to ' demo nstrate a triable issue by producing substantial evidence that the employer ' s stated reasons were untrue or pretextual, or that the employer acted with a discriminatory animus , such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the employer engaged i n intentional discrimination or other unlawful action. ' " ( Serri , at
p. 861

. ) An employee " ' " may establish pretext ' either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that

t he employer ' s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. ' " ' " ( Batarse v. Service Employees Intern at . Union , Local 1000 (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 820, 834 ( Batarse ) .) " It is not sufficient for an employee to make a bare prima facie showing or to simpl y deny the credibility of the employer ' s witnesses or to speculate as to discriminatory motive. [Citations.] Rather it is incumbent upon the employee to produce ' substantial responsive evidence ' demonstrating the existence of a material triable controver sy as to pretext or discriminatory animus on the part of the employer. " ( Serri , supra , 226 Cal.App.4th at
p. 862.) " [S]ummary judgment for the employer may thus be appropriate where, given the strength of the employer ' s showing of innocent reasons, any c ountervailing
circumstan tial evidence of discriminatory motive, even if it may technically constitute a prima facie case, is too weak to raise a rational inference that discrimination occurred. " ( Guz , supra , 24 Cal.4th at p. 362; Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 997, 1004

- 1005 ( Hersant ) .)9 B
1 Webb bases her age discrimination cause of action on both her discharge and on Cox ' s subsequent failure to re hire her

. Among the grounds for summary judgment , Cox argued it provided sub stantial evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and Webb could not meet her countervailing burden of providing substantial evidence Cox ' s reasons were a pretext for intentional discrimination. ( Ba tarse , supra , 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 8 34; Morgan v. Regents of University of California (2000) 88 Cal. App.4th 52, 68 ( Morgan ) .)
T o support its arguments as to Webb ' s discharge , Cox provided evidence it discharged her because it transferred at least 90 percent of her work to a national call
center outside the state and no longer needed her services . To support its arguments as to its failure to rehire her, Cox provided evidence of the various reasons she was either not considered for or not selected for the positions to which she appli ed, principally her lack of minimum qualifications or the existence of candidates Cox deemed better qualified

. Cox ' s reason s for dischar ging Webb and failing to rehire her , if true, are facially unrelated

to her age and preclude a finding of discriminatio n. ( Reeves , supra , 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 673; Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co. ( 9th Cir. 2000) 232 F.3d 1271, 1282.) 2 Accordingly, Cox was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law unless Webb

2 "While state and federal legislation concerning age discrimination differs in some respects, their objectives are identical, and courts of this state have looked to federal law to aid in the interpretation of analogous provisions of Califor nia statutes." ( Hersant , supra , 57 C al. A pp. 4th at p. 1002 , fn. 1.)10

presented substantial evidence Cox ' s true reasons were discri minatory. ( Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co. , supra , at p. 1282

. )
2

a As to her discharge, Webb does not dispute her work principally involved answering Tier 1 calls . She also does not dispute Cox transferred her work out side of California and the work no long er existed after her discharge. Instead, she presented evidence she had experience perform ing at least some of the work temporarily remaining in the San Diego office after Cox transferred her work . Essentially, Webb asserts Cox could have and should have transferred another employee ' s work to her and discharged the other employee instead of her. However, " [w] hen an employer modifies its workforce for business reasons, it has no obligation to transfer an employee to anoth er position within the company. " ( Gibbs v. Consolidated Services (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 794, 800 ; accord, Rose v. Wells Fargo & Co. (9t h Cir. 1990) 902 F.2d 1417, 1422 .) Further, where , as here, Webb ' s tempo r arily retained co workers performed distinct duties for which they were qualified , it is not reasonabl e to conclude from their retention that
age was a significant factor in the decision to temporarily retain them rather than Webb. (See Guz , supra , 24 Cal.4th at p. 369

- 370.) b Webb also provided evidence Jones , who recommended Webb ' s discharge , had both made and tolerated ageist remarks a s recently as six months before Webb ' s discharge. However, such stray remarks, by themselves, are not sufficient to create a11

triable issue of age discrimination. ( Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal. 4th 512, 541

- 542.) At best, these remarks raise only a weak suspicion discrimination was the basis for Webb ' s discharge. While this weak suspicion may be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, it does not amount to substantial evid ence of discrimination necessary to defeat a summary judgment motion. (See Serri , supra , 226 Cal. A pp.4th at
p p . 867

- 868.) Accordingly, we conclude Webb failed to meet her burden of producing substantial evidence Cox ' s stated reasons for discharging her w ere pretextual or that Cox acted with discriminatory animus such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude Cox engaged in intention al discrimination. (See i d . at p. 868.)
3

a As to Cox ' s failure to re hire Webb , we preliminar ily note Webb did not exh aust her administrative remedies as to this aspect of her discrimination claim or as to her related retaliation claim (see Discussion, part III, post ) until she submitted her second DFEH complaint on February 24, 2014. ( Morgan , supra , 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 63 [ an employee may not file a civil action alleging a FEHA violation until the employee first exhausts her administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the DFEH and obtaining a right to sue notice].) The applicable limitations period for FEHA clai ms is one year from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice occurred. (Gov. Code, § 12960, subd. (d); Morgan , supra , at p. 63.) Webb ' s second DFEH complaint states the last act of discriminati on and retaliation occurred on or before July 9, 2013

. Thus, Webb ' s claims for discriminatory and retaliatory failure to rehire her are limited to Cox ' s failure to rehire12

her for positions to which she applied between February 24, 2013, and July 9, 2013. (See Morgan , at p. 63 .) Contrary to Webb ' s assert ion, the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to extend the limitations period for her failure to rehire claims

. " A continuing violation may be established by demonstrating ' a company [

- ] wide policy or practice ' or ' a series of related acts agains t a single individual. " ( Morgan , supra , 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 64.) The first type of continuing violation does not apply as Webb has not alleged Cox has a
company - wide policy of discrimination. ( Id. at p. 65.) For the second type of continuing violation to apply , Webb must establish : (1) Cox ' s various decisions not to rehire her

were closely related; and (2) a reasonable person exercising reasonable diligence would not have known Cox was unlawfully discriminating or retaliating at the time it made any

o f the more than 50 earlier decisions not to rehire her

. ( I bid .) Assuming, without deciding, Webb could establish the first requirement , there is no evidence she could establish the second requirement. Rather, a decision not to rehire an employee general ly has " ' " the degree of permanence which should trigger an employee ' s awareness of and duty to assert [his] or her rights. " ' " ( Id. at p. 66.) b With the applicable limitations period in mind, we consider Webb ' s substantive arguments. She contends Co x ' s stated reasons for failing to rehire her were pretextual because : (1) her high school graduation date and her years of work experience, which were listed on her resume, indicated she was an older worker; (2) the persons selected for at least some of t he positions she sought were either no more qualified or less qualified13

than she ; and (3) her younger coworkers had no difficulty finding other positions within Cox after their layoffs. The first and third points , while relevant to Webb ' s prima facie

case , do not aid her burden of showing pretext. ( Serri , supra , 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 862 [an employee does not meet her burden of showing a triable issue of pretext by making a bare prima facie showing, or simply denying the credibility of the employer ' s witn esses, or speculating as to the employer ' s discriminatory motive]; see Reeves , supra , 186 Cal.App.4th at pp. 673

- 674 [an employee does not meet her burden of showing pretext by simply showing the employer ' s decision was wrong or mistaken; the factual dispu te is whether the employer ' s motivation for its decision was discriminatory animus, not whether the employer ' s decision was wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent].) The second point aids Webb ' s burden of showing pretext only if supported by evidence Webb ' s qualifications were vastly superior to the qualifications of the persons Cox opted to employ instead of her. ( Reeves , supra , 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 675.) Webb only attempted to make thi s showing as to three positions: Media Sales Service Specialist I , Account Services Representative, and Retail Solutions Specialist. W e need not address Webb ' s arguments re garding the first two positions as the record shows the hiring decisions for these positions were made before February 24, 2013, and are, consequently , outside the applicable limitations period

. As to the Retail Solutions Specialist position, the record shows Webb never completed the application process for this position. In addition, while the pe ople hired for this position may have had l ess gene ral work experience and less telecommunications experience than Webb, they all had recent customer

- facing experience in a retail14

environment , which Webb did not have. W e cannot reasonably infer from this record Webb ' s qualifications were " vastly superior " to those hired, and Webb ' s subjective views to the contrary are insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact. ( Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 798, 816 [ " a n employee ' s subjective personal judgments of his or her competence alone do not raise a genuine issue of material fact " ].) We, therefore, conclude Webb failed to meet her burden of producing substantial evidence Cox ' s stated reasons for failing to hire her were pretextual or that Cox acted with discriminatory animus. (See Serri , supra , 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 868.)
II Age Harassment In addition to prohibiting age

- related discrimination, FEHA prohibits age

- related
harassment . ( Gov. Code , § 12940, subd. (j) .) To prevail on a harassment claim, a plaintiff must p roduce evidence showing she was subjected to offensive comments or other abusive conduct based on a protected characteristic and the comments or conduct was sufficient ly severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. ( Serri , supra , 226 Cal .App.4th at p. 871.) " ' Whether the conduct of the alleged harassers was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment depends on the totality of the circumstances. " ' These may include the frequency of the
discrimin atory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee ' s work performance. ' " [Citations.] " ' Common sense, and an appropriate sensibility t o social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or15

roughhousing ... and conduct [that] a reasonable person in the plaintiff ' s position would find severely hostile or abusive. ' " [Citations.] As in sex

- based harassmen t claims, " [t]he plaintiff must prove that the defendant ' s conduct would have interfered with a reasonable employee ' s [fn. omitted] work performance and would have seriously affected the psychological well

- being of a reasonable employee and that [he or she ] was actually offended. " ' " ( Id. at p. 870.) Here, with respect to the severity of the harassment, the alleged ageist remarks attributed to and tolerated by Jones a re not " the type of statements that ' would have interfered with a reasonable employee ' s ... work performance and would have seriously affected the psychological well

- being of a reasonable employee. ' " ( Serri , supra , 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 871.) Indeed, the record shows Webb was a good employee, received favorable performance reviews, and w as happy working at Cox. While the alleged remarks might be in poor taste, " FEHA is not a general civility code. [Citation s .]

' Simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms or conditions of employment. ' " ( Juell v. Forest Pharm s. , Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2006) 456 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1157, citing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) 524 U.S. 775, 788 [118 S.C t . 2275, 141 L. E d.2d 662].)

" With respect to the pervasiveness o f harassment, courts have held an employee generally cannot recover for harassment that is occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial; rather, the employee must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine, or a generalized nature. [Citat ions.] That is, when the harassing conduct is not severe in the extreme, more than a few isolated incidents must have occurred to prove a claim16

based on working conditions. " ( Lyle v. Warner Bro thers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 283

- 284.) Under this standard, the seven or eight alleged ageist remarks made by or tolerated by Jones over the course of three to four years are not sufficiently pervasive to support a claim for harassment. (See Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions , su

pra , at pp. 283

- 284; Serri , supra , 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 871; see also Candelore v. Clark County Sanitation Dist. (9th Cir. 1992) 975 F.2d 588, 590 [sporadic incidents of inappropriate behavior do not create a hostile or abus ive working environment].) Con sequently, we conclude Webb has not established there is a triable issue of material fact as to her age harassment cause of action.
III Retaliation Claim
FEHA also prohibits an employe r from retaliating against a person because the person has filed a DFEH complaint. ( Gov. Code , § 12940, subd. (h) .) " ' " To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected activity, that she was thereafter subjected to adverse employment action by her employer, and there was a causal link between the two. " ' [Citations.] ' The retaliatory motive is

" proved by showing that plaintiff engaged in protected activities, that his employer was aware of the protected activities, and that the adverse action followed within a relatively
short time thereafter. " [Citation.] " The causal link may be established by an inference derived from circumstantial evidence, ' such as the employer ' s knowledge that the [employee] engaged in protected activities and the proximity in time between the
pro tected action and allegedly retaliatory employment decision. ' " [Citation

. ] ' [Citation.]17

' Essential to a causal link is evidence that the employer was aware that the plaintiff had engaged in the protected activity. ' " ( Morgan , supra , 88 Cal.App.4th at pp. 69

- 70 .) In this case, Cox presented affirmative evidence showing none of the recruiters who processed Webb ' s applications for rehire had any knowledge of Webb ' s D FE H complaint. Webb presented no contradictory evidence. In the absence of evidence th e recruit er s were aware of Webb ' s D FE H complaint, she cannot establish the causal link

necessary to raise a triable issue of material fact as to her retaliation claim. 3 ( Morgan , supra , 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 74.)
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Re spondents are awarded their c osts on appeal

.

M C CONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

AARON, J.

3 Given our conclusion Webb has not established a triable issue of material fact as to any of her causes of action, we need not decide whether Webb could establish a triable issue of mat erial fact as to her punitive damages claim.