UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
JER R Y J. HAW KINS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. SIM PLEXGR INNELL, L.P., a De la ware c orporation; TYC O INTER NATIONAL, INC ., a M a ssa c huse tts c orporation, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55480 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01406-L-B GS Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , San Die go ORDER

B e fore : REINHAR

DT, PAEZ, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s. The M e m orandum

file d on Fe brua

ry 16, 2016 is a

m e nde d a s follows: On pa ge 6 of the M e m o ra ndum , inse rt a

pa ra g ra ph bre ak a fte r the se nte nc e

“ The R IF se l e c tion c rite ria we re subje c tive , a

nd Ha wkins a rgue s tha t his supe rvisor
artific ia lly

lowe re d Ha

w kins’ ra tings ba s e d on his a ge .” Afte r this pa ra g ra ph bre a k, inse rt the following: “ Sim ple xGrinne ll a

rgue s tha t the R IF wa s a le g itim ate , non-disc rim i natory

re a son for Ha

wkins’ te rm inat ion. Howe ve r, Hawkins ha s
ra ise d tria ble issue s of fa c t

a s to whe the r his se le c tion for te rm ination a s pa rt of the R IF wa s pre te xtua l. As e xpla ine d a b ove , Ha wkins introduc e d e v ide nc e tha t Sim ple xGrinne ll fa ile d to follow the proc e dure pre sc ribe d by

the R IF and 

# FIL ED

MAR 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSse le c tive ly

c hose the R IF c rite ria

it a p plie d in orde r to ta

rge t Ha wkins for te rm ination.” An Am e nde d M e m orandum is file d c o n c urre ntly

with this order. W ith the se am e ndm e nts, the pe tition for pa ne l re h e aring is DENIED. No furthe r pe titions for re h e aring sha ll be e n te rta i ne d.N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JER R Y J. HAW KINS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. SIM PLEXGR INNELL, L.P., a De la ware c orporation; TYC O INTER NATIONAL, INC ., a M a ssa c huse tts c orporation, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55480 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01406-L-B GS AM ENDED M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M . Ja m e s Lore nz , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 3, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, PAEZ, a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s. Je rry Ha wkins a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e n t in favor of De fe nda

nts on his sta

te la w c la im s for bre a c h of c ontra c t, bre a c h of the



# FIL ED
MAR 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c ove na

nt of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling, a ge disc rim ination, pe rc e ive d disa bility disc rim ination, re ta lia

tion, wrongful dem o tion, wrongful term i nation, a nd inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss (IIED). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm

in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa

rt. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt on Ha

wkins’ bre a c h of c ontra c t a

n d bre a c h of c ove na

nt c la im s. Ha

w kins fa ile d

to ra ise a tria ble issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to his a t-will e m ploy m e n t sta tus. In light of the

undispute d fa c t s, the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt on his bre a c h of
c ontra c t c la im . B e c a

use a bre a c h of the c ove na

nt of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a l ing c an only arise whe n the re is a

va lid e xpre ss or im

plie d c ontra c t be twe e n the pa rtie s, Hawkins’ bre a c h of c ove na n t c la im a lso fa ils. Se e Liu v . Amw ay C orp. , 347 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th C ir. 2003). W e a lso a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt on Ha

wkins’ disa bility disc rim ination c la im unde r C a lifornia ’ s Fa ir Em p loy m e nt a n d Housing Ac t (“ FEHA” ). C a l . Gov’ t C ode § 12940. FEHA make s it unla w ful for a n e m ploy e r, on the ba sis of a ge or phy sic a l disa bility (am ong othe r prote c te d
c ha ra c te ristic s ), to
re fuse to hire or e m

ploy the pe rson or to re fuse to se le c t the pe rson for a tra i ning progra

m le a ding to e m

ploy m e n t, or to ba

r or to disc ha

rge the pe rson from

e m ploy m e nt or from a

tra ining progra

m le a ding to e m ploy m e nt, or to disc rim inate a ga inst thepe rson in c om pe n sation or in te rm s, c onditions, or privile ge s of e m ploy m e nt.C a l. Gov’ t C ode § 12940(a). “ C a lifornia c ourts a pply the Title VII [ Mc

Donne ll Douglas 1 ] fra m e work to c la im s brought under FEHA.” Me toy e r v . C hassman , 504 F.3d 919, 941 (9th C ir. 2007). Ha wkins fa i le d to e sta

blish a prim a fa c ie c a se for disa bility disc rim ination. Ha

wkins’ He patitis C wa s not a “ phy sic a l disa

bility ” be c a use it wa s a sym

ptom atic an d did not lim

it Ha wkins in a m a

jor life a c tivity , a

nd Hawkins did not pre se n t e vide nc e that his e m ploy e rs pe rc e ive d him

a s be ing lim ite d in a

m a jor life a c tivity
. Se e W

inarto v . Toshiba Am. Ele cs. C ompone nts, Inc
. , 274 F.3d 1276, 1291 (9th C ir. 2001). Hawkins a lso fa i le d to ra ise a tria ble issue of fa c t tha

t he ha d e n ga ge d in a prote c te d a c tivity suffic ie nt to giverise to a FEHA Se c tion 12940(h) re ta lia t ion
c la im . Ha

wkins a c knowle dge s tha

t he ne ve r c om

pla ine d a bout disc rim i nation while he wa s e m

ploy e d by Sim ple xGrinne ll. Although hec om pla ine d a bout
va rious a c tions by

Sim ple xGrinne ll m ana ge m e nt— the de nia l of a

c om pa ny truc k, de nia l of tra i ning, de m o tion, a nd te rm i nation—

the re is no e vide n c e in the re c ord that Sim ple xGrinne ll wa s on notic e tha t Ha wkins wa s e xpre ssing opposition to
a ge -ba se d or disa

bility -ba s e d

disc rim ination. Suc h ge ne ra liz e d c om pla i nts a re not prote c te d a c tivity unde r FEHA. Se e Ropev . Auto-C hlor Sy s. of W ashington, Inc
. ,

1 Mc Donne l l Douglas C

orp. v . Gre e n , 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

3163 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 392, 407–08 (C a l . C t. App. 2013) (holding tha t to c onstitute prote c te d a c tivity , the re m

ust be “ som e de gre e of opposition to . . . the e m ploy e r’ s c onduc t or pra c tic e s ba se d on the e m

ploy e e ’ s re a sona

ble be lie f that the e m

ploy e r’ s
a c tion or pra c tic e is unla

wful.” ). W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt on Ha

wkins’ a ge disc rim ination c la im

unde r FEHA. To e sta

blish a prim a fa c ie c a s e of a ge disc rim ination, thepla intiff m ust ge ne ra lly provide e vide n c e tha t (1) a t the tim e of the a d

ve rse a c tion he or she wa s 40 y e ars of a ge or olde r, (2) an a dve rse e m

p loy m e nt a c tion wa s ta

ke n a ga inst the e m ploy e e , (3) at the tim e of the a dve rse a c tion thee m ploy e e wa s satisfa c torily pe rform ing his or he r job a nd (4) the e m

ploy e e wa s re pla c e d in his position by a signific an tly

y ounge r pe rson. He rsant v . De

p’t of Soc
. Se r

v s . , 67 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 483, 486 (C a l. C t. App. 1997) (footnote om i tte d). Ha

wkins c le arly

satisfie s the first two c rite ria . He wa s a
m e m b e r of the prote c te d c la ss be c a use he wa s ove r the a ge of 40 a t a ll tim e s re le va nt to this litiga

tion, a nd he suffe re d a

n a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion whe n he
wa s te rm i nate d a s pa

rt of a R e duc tion in Forc e (“ R IF” ). To e sta blish thethird
e le m e nt of a

prim a fa c ie c a s e , Ha

wkins m ust de m onstra

te that he wa s pe rform ing
satisfa c torily

at the tim e of his te rm ination. B e t we e n the tim e of Ha

wkins’ de m otion (e arly July

2010) a nd the R IF (M arc h

2011), Ha

wkins did not ha

ve any furthe r disc iplina

ry issue s. His fina l pe rform anc e a ppra isa l, on Oc t obe r 30, 2010, 4indic ate d tha t he wa s ge ne ra lly

pe rform ing sa

t isfa c t orily , a lthough his work ne e de d im prove m e nt in two of the

nine a sse ssm e nt c ate gorie s. In the c om m e nts se c tion, the e va luator wrote “ Good work qua lity . NIC E TT II c e rtific ation will be re quire d for fore m an bonus pla

n to be e ffe c tua l in the se c ond ha lf of 2011. Is showing im prove m e nt in sa fe ty

issue s & c onc e rns!” Vie we d in the light m ost fa vora ble to Hawkins, this evide nc e is suffic ie nt to c re ate a ge n uine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he wa s pe rform ing sa tisfa c torily

at the tim e of his te rm inat ion. An e m ploy e e is ge ne ra lly

a lso re q uire d to show tha

t he or she “ wa s re pla c e d in his [or he r] position by a signific antly

y o unge r pe rson.” Id. Howe ve r, this form ulat ion is not a

pplic a ble to the fa c ts of e ve ry c a se . N idds v . Sc hindle r Ele v ator C

orp. , 113 F.3d 912, 917 (9th C ir. 1996). The C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt ha s e xpla ine d tha

t “ downsiz ing a lone is not ne c e ssa rily a suffic ie n t e xpla

nation, unde r the FEHA, for the c onse que nt dismissa l of a n a ge -prote c te d

worke r.” Guz v
. Be c hte l N at. Inc
. , 8 P.3d 1089, 1115 (C a l. 2000). Thus, to sa tisfy the fourth
e le m e nt of a

prim a fa c ie c a s e , Ha

wkins ne e d only

provide e vide nc e tha

t “ som e othe r c irc um sta

n c e sugge sts disc rim inatory m o tive .” Id. at 1113. Disc rim inatory
m otive ne e d

not ha v e be e n the “ but for” c a

use of a n a d v e rse e m ploy m e nt de c ision, so long a s it wa s a

“ substa ntia l m otiva

ting fa c tor.” Harris v . C

ity of Santa Monic a , 294 P.3d 49, 64–66 (C a l . 2013). 5Hawkins ha s de m onstra te d a tria ble issue of fa c t re ga

rding whe the r a g e wa s
a substa ntia l m otiva

ting fa c tor in his term ination. During his e m ploy m e nt, Sim ple xGrinne ll provide d c om pa ny truc ks to y o unge r e m

ploy e e s who be c am e e ligibleto re c e ive the m

late r tha n Ha wkins, inc luding onee m

ploy e e who wa s hire d
a fte r Hawkins a

nd a nothe r whose lic e nse ha d be e n suspe nde d a fte r a DUI. Hawkins ha d to c o m

pla in to Hum an R e s ourc e s be fore he wa s fina lly se nt to a
c om pa ny tra ining routine ly provide d to y ounge r worke rs. In a ddition, Ha wkins
c ha lle nge s the way

in whic h the R IF wa s a dm iniste re d, e xpla ining tha t Sim ple xGrinne ll fa ile d to inc lude ra tings for c e rtific at ions a nd lic e nse s tha

t would have im prove d Ha

wkins’ sc ore s a

nd tha t the y ignore d the R IF’ s dire c tion tha t two supe rvisors indepe n de n t ly ra te e a c h e m

ploy e e . The R IF se le c tion c rite ria we re subje c tive , a

n d Ha wkins a rgue s tha t his supe rvisor a

rtific ia lly lowe re d Ha

w kins’
ra tings ba se d on his a ge . Sim ple xGrinne ll a

rgue s tha t the R IF wa s a

le gitim ate , non-disc rim inatory
re a s on for Ha

wkins’ te rm inat ion. Howe ve r, Ha wkins ha s ra i se d tria

ble issue s of fa c t a s to whe the r his se le c tion for te rm ination a s pa rt of the R IF wa s pre te xtua l. As e xpla ine d a

bove , Ha wkins introduc e d e vide nc e tha t Sim ple x Grinne ll fa i le d to follow theproc e dure pre sc ribe d by the R IF and se le c tive ly

c hose the R IF c rite ria

it

6a

pplie d in orde r to ta

rge t Ha wkins for te rm ination. Ha wkins ha s the re fore
e sta blishe d tria

ble issue s of m ate ria l fa c t on his FEHA age disc rim ination c la im
. W e a lso re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt on Ha

wkins’
c om m on la w wrongful disc h a

rge ( Tame ny ) c la i m . Tame ny v . Atl. Ric hfie ld C

o. , 610 P.2d 1330 (C a l. 1980). Unde r C a lifornia la w , te rm ination m otiva

t e d by a ge disc rim ination c an a lso giverise to a Tame ny c la im
. Ste v e nson v . Supe rior C ourt , 941 P.2d 1157, 1158 (C a l. 1997). B e c a use the re are tria

ble issue s of m ate ria l fa c t
a s to Ha w kins’ a ge disc rim ination c la i m unde r FEHA, we a lso re v e rse the distric t
c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt on Ha

wkins’ Tame ny c la im
. Fina lly , we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt on Hawkins’ inte n tiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss (“ IIED” ) c la im . Eve n if Hawkins’ disc ha

rge wa s m otiva

te d by disc rim ination, Ha

w kins fa ile d to provide
e vide nc e tha

t he suffe re d e xtre m e e m otiona l distre ss, whic h is a re quire d e le m e nt of an IIED c l a im
. Se e Mc C oy v . Pac . Mar. Ass’n , 156 C a l. R ptr. 3d 851, 862 (C a l. C t. App. 2013). AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l.

7