The opinion of the court was delivered by: David O. Carter United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 14)
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant The Boeing Company ("Defendant"). (Dkt. 14). After reviewing the moving papers and oral argument, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on all eight claims brought by Plaintiff Maria Wu ("Plaintiff").
The gravamen of Plaintiff's Complaint is that Defendant terminated her due to her race, gender, or age. As explained in the Discussion section, Plaintiff's evidence is either inadmissible or irrelevant.
a.Plaintiff's eight claims
The Complaint brings the following claims: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy under California law; (2) discrimination based on race, gender, and age*fn1 in violation of California Government Code §12940(a) et seq., and the California Constitution Article I Section 7*fn2 ; (3) retaliation; (4) hostile work environment; (5) breach of implied employment contract; (6) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) failure to maintain a workplace free of discrimination; and (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Notice of Removal Ex. A ("Compl.") (Dkt. 1).
Plaintiff's claims all appear to be premised on the fact that, "[i]n
2008, [she] was given an At Risk of Layoff Notice and, in 2009 [her]
employment was terminated." Wu Decl. (Dkt. 21-1) ¶ 1.*fn3
Defendant contends that this At Risk of Layoff Notice was
given due to Plaintiff's relatively low ranking in an August 2008
Reduction In Force ("RIF") Assessment. Plaintiff argues that the
August 2008 RIF Assessment were not the real basis for determining
which employees were terminated because these decisions were actually made
at "secret meetings" by management in which race, gender, or age was
considered. See Opp'n at 16.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff "did not file any complaints during her employment with [Defendant] prior to her April 2009 complaint to [Defendant's Equal Employment Opportunity] department." Defs. Reply Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts (Dkt. 30) ¶ 24.
b.Plaintiff's inadmissible evidence
Plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of: (1) two witnesses' statements about the existence and contents of "secret meetings" where employees were selected for termination; (2) a witnesses' statements about the existence or contents of a list of pre-ranked employees; and (3) a document listing employees' names, races, genders, and ages. As explained below in the discussion section, this evidence is inadmissible.
c.Plaintiff has not introduced any evidence regarding her comparators' race, gender, or age
Plaintiff also argues that she was terminated "when other less qualified and less experienced employees were not" and identifies comparator employees Furman, Graham, Chang, and Hamilton. Opp'n at 17. As explained in the Discussion section, Plaintiff's evidence regarding Defendant's treatment of these comparators is irrelevant because she has failed to show that they are appropriate comparators.
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 1, 2011, and Defendant removed this action to federal court on July 12, 2011. See Compl. The first motion in this Court was filed a year later on July 16, 2012, when Defendant filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment (Dk.t 14). Plaintiff did not timely oppose, and thus this Court ...