Related Attorneys
Horvitz & Levy convinced the Court of Appeal to affirm summary judgment in favor of the Regents of the University of California in this employment discrimination and harassment litigation, on the ground that the evidence plaintiff relied upon in support of his claim failed to create and triable issue of fact.
Alin Abbassi began working at UCLA Extension (UNEX) as an entry-level marketing employee. He received steady promotions and pay increases for about a decade until he was given a temporary appointment as the interim chief marketing officer for UNEX. After a new UNEX dean was appointed, he expanded duties of the chief marketing officer position and formed a committee to recruit nationwide to fill that position. The dean and others informed Abbassi that he had to apply for the permanent position if he wanted to be considered. Abbassi declined to apply, and the position was filled with an applicant who applied through open enrollment. Abbassi resigned and sued The Regents for discrimination and harassment. Abbassi claimed that a UNEX manager promised he would be directly appointed as the permanent chief marketing manager and given a substantial pay raise.
The Regents moved for summary judgment based on undisputed evidence that numerous UNEX managers informed Abbassi that his position was only temporary and he was not a “shoe-in” to become the permanent Chief Marketing manager. The Regents also presented evidence that UNEX had a policy filling director-level positions using an “open recruitment process” that included a “formal job posting.” The trial court granted The Regents’ motion, ruling that he had not suffered any adverse employment action and his evidence of alleged harassment was too trivial to be actionable. Abbassi appealed.
The Regents retained Horvitz & Levy to defend the summary judgment ruling on appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Abbassi failed to satisfy his burden of producing substantial evidence showing that UNEX’s legitimate reasons for not promoting him to the permanent chief marketing officer position were untrue or that it otherwise acted with a discriminatory motive. The court explained that Abbassi’s subjective beliefs about a UNEX’s motives did not create a triable issue of fact, he failed to show that he was treated differently than any similarly situated individuals, his evidence regarding an alleged “discriminatory” and “toxic” work environment was too vague to support his claim, and he was not permitted to rely on evidence the trial court excluded without establishing evidentiary error on appeal. Finally, the court held that Abbassi’s evidence supporting his harassment claim was too isolated, sporadic, and trivial to be actionable.
