Horne v. District Council 16 International Union of Painters & Allied Trades
234 Cal. App. 4th 524, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 148, 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 879 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), after-acquired evidence of a job applicant's ineligibility for a position cannot be used as a complete defense to bar a discrimination claim at the liability stage. Such evidence is only relevant when determining the appropriate remedies after liability has been established.
Facts:
- Raymond E. Horne, an African-American man, was a long-time member of Glaziers Local No. 718, a union affiliated with District Council 16.
- In 1997, Horne was convicted of possession of narcotics for sale, served a prison term, and was discharged from parole in May 2003.
- In 2009, Horne applied for an organizer position with District Council 16 but was not hired; the position was filled by a White man.
- In February 2010, Horne again applied for an organizer position with District Council 16 and was again rejected in favor of a White male.
- At the time it made its decision not to hire Horne in 2010, District Council 16 was unaware of his 1997 narcotics conviction.
- A federal law, the LMRDA, prohibits individuals with such convictions from holding union organizer positions for a 13-year period unless their citizenship rights have been fully restored.
- In July 2010, Horne filed an internal complaint with the union, which concluded that no violation of its anti-discrimination rules had occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Raymond E. Horne sued District Council 16 in a California state trial court for racial discrimination under FEHA.
- During discovery, District Council 16 learned of Horne's 1997 felony narcotics conviction.
- District Council 16 moved for summary judgment, arguing Horne was legally ineligible for the organizer position under the federal LMRDA and thus could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
- The trial court granted District Council 16's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
- Horne, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal's initial decision and subsequently transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of its new opinion in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the after-acquired evidence doctrine, which reveals an applicant's legal ineligibility for a position due to a prior felony conviction, serve as a complete bar to a racial discrimination claim under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by negating the prima facie element that the applicant was qualified?
Opinions:
Majority - Reardon, J.
No. The after-acquired evidence of an applicant's ineligibility does not serve as a complete bar to a discrimination claim under FEHA. Relying on the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the court held that using after-acquired evidence to defeat a plaintiff's prima facie case would constitute a complete defense, which would eviscerate the public policies of FEHA by allowing employers to engage in discrimination with impunity. The court reasoned that the employer's discriminatory act precedes the discovery of the disqualifying information, and the focus of the liability phase must be on the employer's motive at the time of the employment decision. After-acquired evidence is not relevant to determining liability but is properly considered only in the remedies phase to tailor appropriate relief, such as limiting backpay from the date the employer discovered the wrongdoing.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'after-acquired evidence' doctrine from Salas to cases involving job applicants who were legally ineligible for a position, not just incumbent employees who engaged in misconduct. It reinforces the principle that an employer's motive is judged based on what was known at the time of the adverse employment action, preventing employers from using discoveries made during litigation to retroactively justify a potentially discriminatory decision. The ruling preserves the deterrent effect of FEHA by ensuring that discrimination claims are heard on their merits, while balancing the equities by allowing courts to limit remedies based on the applicant's own disqualification. This approach separates the question of liability from the question of damages, thereby protecting the integrity of anti-discrimination law.
