Page 3
C.A. Revives Bias Claim Based on Reference to ‘You People’
Opinion Says Summary Judgment Was Improperly Granted to Department of Corrections Where Supervisor Accused Black Employee of Misconduct After Allegedly Telling Her ‘I Don’t Understand Your People’
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that summary judgment was improperly granted to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in an employment discrimination action alleging that a supervisor told a Black female correctional officer that he does not “understand your people” and made accusations of misconduct against her which led to an investigation by the Office of Internal Affairs.
The employee alleges that she was denied promotion during the pendency of the two-year Internal Affairs investigation, which eventually cleared her of all charges.
She asserts a so-called “cat’s paw” theory—in which a biased employee dupes those with authority into decisions which negatively affect the targeted employee under false pretenses—and contends that the supervisor made the misconduct report in order to trigger the investigation, knowing that the process would delay her efforts to move up.
In an unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday and authored by Justice Douglas P. Miller, the court said that the reference to “your people” could support a finding of racial animus and rejected the determination by Riverside Superior Court Judge Irma Poole Asberry—the first Black female to be appointed to the court—that the “comment is not racial in nature.”
Acting Presiding Justice Art W. McKinster and Justice Michael J. Raphael joined in the opinion.
Complaint Filed
Plaintiff Holly Sanders filed a complaint against the department and the supervising employee, Jonathan Rodriguez, in November 2021, asserting, among other claims, a cause of action for employment discrimination, under Government Code §12940. The section prohibits taking adverse employment actions based on an employee’s membership in a protected class such as race.
The operative complaint alleges:
“From in or around mid-September 2019 to October 19, 2020, PLAINTIFF was subjected to harassment based on her race (African American) by Jonathan Rodriguez, Correctional Lieutenant….The harassment was verbal in nature and occurred on numerous occasions. Examples include, but are not limited to RODRIGUEZ telling her, ‘I don’t understand why your people can’t listen to what I am telling you to do[.’] In addition, in mid-September 2019, RODRIGUEZ told PLAINTIFF, ‘I can’t stand your people[.’] When PLAINTIFF asked, ‘what did you say?’ RODRIGUEZ replied, ‘You know what I mean, I can’t stand your people’ and walked away from PLAINTIFF.”
In a separate statement of undisputed facts, the department acknowledged that Rodriguez “on at least one occasion,…said, ‘I don’t understand your people.’ ”
Asberry granted the department’s motion for summary judgment, saying:
“As for the alleged denial of promotion, Plaintiff states she put in various applications for a sergeant position but…her application was ‘null and void because I was still up under investigation.’….Even if this is an adverse employment action, Plaintiff was not promoted to sergeant while she was under investigation because she was under investigation, not because of her race. Plaintiff’s own testimony makes clear she was denied a sergeant position because she was under investigation and not because of any discriminatory reason.”
Employment Discrimination
Miller, in his opinion reversing the ensuing judgment in favor of the defendant, noted that “[t]he elements of a discrimination cause of action include ‘that the plaintiff: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2)…was performing competently in the position…; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) was subject to some other circumstance suggesting discriminatory motive.’ ”
Turning to the first two elements, he said that Sanders “asserts that she was discriminated against due to her race, which is a protected class” and reasoned that “[o]ne could conclude…that [Sanders] was competent to perform her job” by the fact that she had worked for the department for 20 years and none of the allegations underlying the Internal Affairs investigation were sustained.
As to the adverse employment action, he commented that “[t]he denial of a promotion could be viewed as an adverse employment action because it negatively affects Employee’s career advancement,” so the question remaining on appeal was whether the denial of a promotion occurred under circumstances suggesting discriminatory motives.
Addressing the “cat’s paw” theory, the jurist wrote:
“The January 2021 investigation was ordered by Warden Mona Houston in response to the allegations made by Supervisor. One could conclude that by reporting his allegations and requesting an administrative inquiry, Supervisor played a critical role in triggering the investigation, which caused the adverse employment action, e.g., Employee being denied a promotion to Sergeant.”
‘You People’ Comment
As to the evidence of Rodriguez exhibiting racial bias, Miller pointed out:
“In the trial court’s ruling, it wrote, ‘[Supervisor] made at least one comment about “you people” to [Employee]. [Supervisor] did not reference [Employee’s] race or heritage….Here, the comment is not racial in nature.’….[Employee] alleged that Supervisor said to her ‘I can’t stand your people.’ [Employee] asked, ‘[W]hat did you say?’ and [Supervisor] replied, ‘You know what I mean, I can’t stand your people’ and walked away from [Employee].’ In liberally construing this evidence in favor of Employee…, one could conclude that ‘your people’ referred to African-American people. Therefore, we reject the trial court’s conclusion that the comment could not be found to be racist.”
Rejecting the department’s assertion that the phrase “your people” could refer to correctional officers like Sanders, the justice remarked:
“On summary judgment, we draw inferences in favor of Employee—not the Department….Therefore, at this stage, when deciding what “your people” might mean, we infer it has a racist meaning.”
Addressing Asberry’s finding that Sanders’ promotion was denied because she was under investigation and not because of racial animus, he said:
“We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion because one could conclude that Supervisor requested Employee be investigated due to racial bias and in order to cause adverse actions for her career, such as being denied promotions. In that scenario, when Employee was denied the promotion due to the investigation, it comes back to Supervisor, who allegedly abused the complaint process to harm Employee’s career for racist reasons, i.e., the cat’s-paw theory.”
Summary Judgment Motion
Miller explained that, in a summary judgment motion, the employer—as the moving party—bears the initial burden of presenting admissible evidence showing either that one of more elements of the plaintiff’s prima facie case is absent or that the adverse employment action was based upon nondiscriminatory reasons.
Pointing out the admission in the department’s statement of undisputed facts, he opined:
“One could view the phrase…‘I don’t understand your people’ as demeaning. Therefore, in Employer’s statement of undisputed facts, there is a fact indicating Supervisor may have harbored racial animosity. As a result, the Department has not conclusively demonstrated, for purposes of summary judgment, that the investigation was requested for legitimate reasons.”
Noting that the department did not seek summary adjudication on a claim-by-claim basis and instead moved only for summary judgment, the jurist concluded:
“There are triable issues of fact on the [employment discrimination] cause of action, which means the Department has failed to demonstrate that there is no merit to the case. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment fails.”
The case is Sanders v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, E082238.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company