(2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243
Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two · Decided October 9, 2009
01. Facts
Iftikhar Nazir, a man of Pakistani ancestry, worked for United Airlines for over 16 years, rising to mechanic supervisor — the only person of color ever to hold that position — and alleged he was called scurrilous names and subjected to numerous indignities before being terminated in 2005 (178 Cal.App.4th at p. 248). The summary-judgment record was extraordinary: the defendants filed a massive separate statement and thousands of pages of material, and the plaintiff filed some 1,150 pages in reply, with over 5,400 pages before the trial court, which granted summary judgment for the defendants (id. at p. 248).
02. Procedural posture
The Court of Appeal reversed in substantial part, reinstating the harassment and retaliation claims and sharply criticizing the misuse of summary judgment (178 Cal.App.4th at p. 248).
03. Issue
Whether summary judgment was properly granted on the plaintiff’s FEHA harassment and retaliation claims, and how trial courts should handle voluminous summary-judgment records and evidentiary objections.
Holding
Summary judgment was improperly granted on the harassment and retaliation claims because triable issues of fact existed; the decision is notable for its strong criticism of the overuse and abuse of summary judgment in employment cases, for its treatment of the parties’ voluminous (and often meritless) evidentiary objections, and for reaffirming that the moving party bears a real burden and that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party.
05. Reasoning
The court emphasized that summary judgment is not a tool for resolving disputed facts and criticized the parties’ (especially the employer’s) litigation practices, including a bloated separate statement and a barrage of evidentiary objections. Reviewing the record de novo and in the plaintiff’s favor, it found ample evidence from which a jury could find harassment based on national origin and retaliation, so the claims had to go to trial; it also addressed how courts should rule on (and parties should make) evidentiary objections.
Practice Pointer
Nazir is a favorite plaintiff’s-side authority for opposing summary judgment in FEHA cases: cite it for the principle that employment cases are rarely appropriate for summary adjudication, that the employer’s burden is real, and that evidence must be construed in the employee’s favor. Use it to push back on overlong separate statements and shotgun evidentiary objections.
06. Open questions
Nazir is influential rhetoric and a useful procedural touchstone, but it applies settled summary-judgment standards to an extreme record; how aggressively its critique of summary-judgment practice translates into outcomes still depends on the facts and the reviewing court.
Cite this entry
Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243.
“Plaintiff Iftikhar Nazir, a man of Pakistani ancestry, worked for United Airlines, Inc. … for over 16 years, during which time he was called scurrilous names.” — 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 248
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].