Opinion ID: 3032985
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Porter’s Evidence of Pretext

Text: The district court further surmised that the CDC had offered a legitimate reason for denying Porter’s transfer requests, and that Porter had failed to present evidence showing that the explanation was pretextual. Thus, the district court determined that the CDC was still entitled to summary adjudication of the retaliation claim even if Porter’s evidence had established a prima facie case. We do not agree. [7] Just as DeSantis’s deviations from the CDC’s protocol support an inference of pretext for purposes of Porter’s quid pro quo claim, so too do these irregularities in the process permit an inference of pretext with regard to the retaliation claim. To conclude otherwise would be anomalous. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s summary adjudication of this claim, and remand for further proceedings. 6 On remand, the CDC may cite the passage of time as evidence of a lack of causation, but it will be for the trier of fact to make the ultimate determination. PORTER v. CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS 10163