Opinion ID: 786872
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legitimate Employment Reasons and Pretext

Text: 38 Fonseca has established a prima facie case for summary judgment purposes, and, therefore benefits from a presumption of unlawful discrimination, which Sysco can rebut only if it offers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1112 (9th Cir.2002). If Sysco provides a legitimate reason for disciplining or refusing to pay Fonseca, the burden shifts to Fonseca to show that the reason given is a pretext. See Pottenger v. Potlatch Corp., 329 F.3d 740, 746 (9th Cir.2003). 39 Sysco offers only one reason for one instance of disparate treatment, besides its conclusory and irrelevant assertion that any disparate treatment was inadvertent. Regarding the zucchini incident, Sysco argues that Bill Zink, who saw Fonseca's zucchini accident, determined that Fonseca intentionally damaged the goods, and therefore discipline was appropriate. 40 [A] plaintiff can prove pretext either `(1) indirectly, by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is `unworthy of credence' because it is internally inconsistent or otherwise not believable, or (2) directly, by showing that unlawful discrimination more likely motivated the employer.' Lyons, 307 F.3d at 1113 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1220-22 (9th Cir.1998)). 41 Fonseca argues that the zucchini damage demonstrably was not his fault, and further that it would have been ridiculous for Zink or Peterson to conclude that Fonseca would intentionally damage goods in front of four supervisors. This is supported by Fonseca's testimony that no one conducted any investigation into the incident, and that Fonseca successfully grieved his suspension. In addition, while Zink's declaration states that he recommended discipline, Peterson was the person who ordered Fonseca's suspension. Given the evidence of Peterson's discriminatory animus, Fonseca has shown sufficient evidence of pretext to rebut the one explanation that Sysco produced. See Chuang v. Univ. of California Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) ([A] disparate treatment plaintiff can survive summary judgment without producing any evidence of discrimination beyond that constituting his prima facie case, if that evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding the truth of the employer's proffered reasons.). 42 There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Sysco's adverse employment actions against Fonseca constituted disparate treatment on the basis of race or ethnicity. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment.