McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
142 Cal.App.4th 377, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To constitute an actionable adverse employment action under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer's conduct must materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. A lateral transfer or a series of minor disciplinary actions that do not result in tangible, objective harm such as a demotion, loss of pay, or significant change in responsibilities is insufficient to support a retaliation claim.
Facts:
- In 1992, Dr. Margie McRae, an African-American surgeon, began working for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) at its California Medical Facility (CMF) and received excellent performance evaluations for years.
- In 1996, a Caucasian woman, Dr. Jessica Clarke, was selected over Dr. McRae for the Chief Medical Officer position at a separate facility, Solano Prison.
- On April 25, 1997, Dr. McRae filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), alleging she was denied the appointment at Solano Prison due to her race.
- Following her complaint, Dr. McRae's supervisor at CMF, Dr. Andreasen, documented alleged misconduct and issued her a formal 'Letter of Instruction' in June 1997.
- Over the next several months, Dr. Andreasen and another doctor initiated internal affairs investigations into Dr. McRae's professional conduct with patients.
- In April 1998, Dr. McRae had a heated confrontation with two nurses, Bruce Wiltse and Robert Burkhart, over her unplugging an air filter. She went on disability leave the following day.
- In May 1998, while on leave, Dr. McRae filed a second DFEH complaint, alleging the 1997 Letter of Instruction was retaliatory.
- In July 1998, the Department directed Dr. McRae to report to work at Solano Prison upon her return from leave, stating the transfer would resolve her safety and workplace concerns at CMF.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. McRae filed a lawsuit in trial court against the Department and four individual defendants, alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the four individual defendants.
- The case against the Department proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict against Dr. McRae on her discrimination claim but found in her favor on the retaliation claim, awarding her $75,000.
- The Department, as appellant, appealed the judgment entered on the jury's verdict for retaliation to the California Court of Appeal.
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 a series of employer actions, including critical memoranda, a letter of instruction, internal investigations, and an involuntary lateral transfer with no loss of pay or benefits, constitute an adverse employment action sufficient to support a retaliation claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, Acting P. J.
No, this series of actions does not constitute an actionable adverse employment action. To be legally actionable under FEHA, an employer's retaliatory conduct must materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The court reasoned that the memoranda, letter of instruction, and investigations were intermediate actions that, individually or collectively, did not have a detrimental and substantial effect on Dr. McRae's employment. The transfer to Solano Prison was a lateral move with no demotion, reduction in pay, or loss of benefits; Dr. McRae's subjective complaints about the new facility (e.g., lack of a lab coat, on-call duties) did not amount to objectively tangible harm. Furthermore, the Department offered a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the transfer—to resolve the documented conflicts and safety concerns Dr. McRae herself had raised at CMF—and Dr. McRae failed to provide substantial evidence that this reason was a pretext for retaliation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and raises the threshold for what constitutes an 'adverse employment action' in California retaliation cases. It emphasizes that not every action an employee dislikes is legally actionable, thereby guarding against judicial micromanagement of routine business and personnel decisions. The ruling solidifies the distinction between an employee's subjective dissatisfaction and the objective, tangible harm required to sustain a FEHA claim. It also reinforces the plaintiff's burden to prove pretext with 'ponderable legal significance' rather than mere speculation or personal belief, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive challenges to the sufficiency of their evidence.
