Opinion ID: 3065761
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unlawful Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps

Text: Necessary to Prevent Discrimination The district court granted Lucent summary judgment on DFEH’s claim that Lucent unlawfully failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination because there was no viable claim for discrimination. Lucent III, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98960, at . We affirm. [23] Under the FEHA, it is unlawful “[f]or an employer . . . to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k). The California courts have held that this subsec5380 DFEH v. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES tion is a separate unlawful employment practice. Carter v. Cal. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 135 P.3d 637, 645 n.4 (Cal. 2006). Nevertheless, employers are not liable for failing to take necessary steps to prevent discrimination, “except where the [discriminatory] actions took place and were not prevented.” Trujillo v. N. Cnty. Transit Dist., 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 596, 602 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998); see Carter, 135 P.3d at 645 n.4. DFEH, therefore, cannot prevail on this claim because the evidence does not show that Lucent discriminated against Carauddo. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on this claim was not in error. IV. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy The district court held that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to Carauddo’s wrongful termination claim because DFEH could not prevail on any of its claims under the FEHA. Lucent III, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98960, at . We affirm. [24] Under California common law, although “an at-will employee may be terminated for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate for an unlawful reason or a purpose that contravenes fundamental public policy.” Silo v. CHW Med. Found., 45 P.3d 1162, 1166 (Cal. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, “[t]his public policy exception to the at-will employment rule must be based on policies carefully tethered to fundamental policies that are delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions.” Id. at 1166 (internal quotation marks omitted). The elements for this tort are (1) the existence of a public policy and (2) a nexus between the public policy and an employee’s termination. See Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 876 P.2d 1022, 1034 (Cal. 1994). Although “disability discrimination can form the basis of a common law wrongful discharge claim,” City of Moorpark v. Superior Court, 959 P.2d 752, 763 (Cal. 1998), there are no genuine issues of material fact remaining as to any of DFEH’s disability discrimination DFEH v. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 5381 claims. The district court’s determination that Carauddo could not prevail on this cause of action, therefore, was correct.