Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Chavez v. City of Los Angeles
Citation: 111 F. App'x 881Docket: No. 02-56789; D.C. No. CV-00-08251-NMM
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 30, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
1. The district court correctly granted summary judgment on Chavez’s hostile work environment claim under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), concluding that the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to change his employment conditions. 2. Summary judgment was also appropriate for the Chavezes’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim regarding violations of Fourth Amendment privacy rights due to alleged abusive surveillance by the LAPD, as no evidence was presented demonstrating a custom or policy supporting such conduct. 3. Most of Chavez’s retaliation claims were dismissed due to insufficient evidence establishing a causal link between his protected activities and subsequent actions taken against him, including his removal from patrol duty and reassignment to administrative tasks after stress leave. There was no triable issue of fact regarding the adequacy of the City's response to his complaints or evidence suggesting that the City’s reasons for suspending him were a pretext for retaliation. 4. The district court did not determine if the temporary rescission of Chavez’s transfer was an adverse employment action under FEHA. If it is found to be so on remand, there may be a genuine issue of material fact regarding the causal connection between the rescission and Chavez’s protected complaints. 5. Genuine issues of material fact exist concerning Chavez’s FEHA discrimination claim. If Chavez was indeed reassigned to a less favorable position without overtime pay, this could constitute an adverse employment action. Unlike his temporary suspension, there is a potential for a jury to find that the City's rationale for his reassignment shortly after returning from leave was a pretext for discrimination, based on evidence presented by Chavez. The district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed regarding Chavez's claims of disability harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), most of his FEHA retaliation claims, and the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. The Chavezes waived their nuisance claim by not adequately arguing it on appeal. Additionally, they failed to support their appeal related to the district court's summary judgment for the City on their First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, as well as their privacy rights claim under the California Constitution. The court reverses and remands on Chavez's FEHA discrimination claim and his retaliation claim linked to a rescinded transfer, allowing the district court discretion on supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims. No costs will be recovered by either party. The decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, with a note that it is not suitable for publication or citation except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. There is also a noted disagreement in California courts regarding the definition of "adverse employment action" in retaliation claims under FEHA, with ongoing review by the California Supreme Court in the Yanowitz case.