Supervisor's Hostile Behavior Did Not Constitute Adverse Employment Action

Prison psychologist John Doe sued his former employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), discrimination, retaliation, harassment based on disability, and failure to accommodate his disabilities, dyslexia and asthma. According to Doe, CDCR's refusal to provide him a private, distraction-free office, as needed to accommodate his dyslexia, caused him stress, exacerbating his asthma.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CDCR.

The court of appeal affirmed, holding that Doe failed to provide evidence of any adverse employment action, as needed needed to support his discrimination and retaliation claims. Doe cited his supervisor's criticism of his work at a job performance meeting, which meeting he described as "hostile" and "like an interrogation." He also cited his supervisor's conduct in sending police to his home for a welfare check when he failed to appear for work, in falsely accusing him of bringing a cell phone into the prison, and in designating him as the on-call crisis person on a day when he needed to leave early for a union meeting. Even if these allegations were well-founded, and the supervisor acted with malice, none of these actions in any way materially affected the terms, conditions, or privileges of Doe's job. Although the supervisor's conduct may have been upsetting, none of it resulted in either discipline or demotion. CDCR's alleged rejection of Doe's accommodation requests could also not be construed as an adverse employment action. Doe's harassment claim, which relied on the same allegations of supervisor misconduct, was similarly unavailing. Finally, Doe failed to present any facts to dispute CDCR's evidence that Doe, and not CDCR, was responsible for any breakdown in the interactive accommodation process.

Doe v. CDCR, November 27, 2019