'Filed Letter From: Gibson Dunn-Attaching Clear Copies Of Exhibits'
'Letter Sent To Counsel Re: In This Appeal From A Judgment Following The Grant Of Respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment, We View The Evidence In A Light Most Favorable To Appellant, Liberally Construing Appellant's Evidence, Strictly Scrutinizing Respondent's Evidence, And Resolving Evidentiary Doubts Or Ambiguities In Appellant's Favor. (mcdonald V. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 96-97 [appeal From Defense Summary Judgment In Feha Discrimination Case].) From The Admissible Evidence We Also Must Draw All Reasonably Deducible Inferences In Favor Of Appellant. (aguilar V. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)on The Afternoon Of March 23, 2016, A Group Of Respondent's Employees, Which Included Appellant, James Rolke, Kimberly Bieder, And Others, Were In Respondent's Offices Talking About Taking Time Off. Speaking Loudly Enough For The Whole Group To Hear, Appellant Said " 'oh, Don't Take Off For Good Friday Though.' " Based At Least In Part On This Statement To The Group, Which Rolke Heard And Considered "snarky And Disrespectful, " Rolke Made The Decision To Terminate Appellant's Employment "for Having A 'bad Attitude.' "a Principal Issue On Appeal Is Whether, At The Time He Directed The Termination Of Appellant's Employment, Rolke Knew That Appellant's Request To Take Off Work On March 25, 2016, In Part Was Based On Appellant's Request To Observe Good Friday.appellant Focuses On The Involvement Of Bieder, To Whom Appellant Reported And Who Received And Approved Appellant's Request For The Day Off For Good Friday. According To Appellant, Because There Were Various Conversations Between Rolke And Bieder (and Between Rolke And Sandra Vedrick, Head Of Respondent's Human Resources Department) Concerning Appellant's Request For The Day Off, For Purposes Of Summary Judgment We Should Infer That, At The Time Rolke Terminated Appellant, Rolke Knew Of The Religious Nature Of Appellant's Request For Time Off. (4 Ct 898 ¶ 39.)respondent Disagrees, Arguing That The Evidence Establishes That Rolke Was Unaware That Appellant Had Requested The Day Off For Religious Reasons. Based On Appellant's Discovery Responses And The Undisputed Facts, Respondent Emphasizes The Following: (1) Appellant Identified Bieder As The Only Individual Who Took An Adverse Employment Action Against Appellant, And (2) Rolke Did Not Have Any Knowledge Of Any Discriminatory Adverse Employment Actions Taken Against Appellant. (4 Ct 897 ¶¶ 28, 29.)thus, Based On The Foregoing, Rolke Terminated Appellant's Employment At Least In Part On Appellant's Statement One Day Before The Termination, " 'oh, Don't Take Off For Good Friday Though.' " (italics Added.) However, From This Evidence, Appellant Does Not Suggest An Inference That Rolke Had Knowledge Of The Religious Nature Of Appellant's Request For The Day Off Based On The Substance Of Appellant's Statement Made To The Group Of Respondent's Employees.the Court Requests That The Parties Provide Supplement Briefing That Discusses:1. On De Novo Review Following Summary Judgment, For Purposes Of Determining Whether The Plaintiff/appellant Met Its Responsive Burden In Attempting To Defeat The Defendant/respondent's Showing, May An Appellate Court Consider Inferences That Were Not Argued On Appeal By The Plaintiff/Appellant?; And2. In The Event The Court In This Appeal May, And Is Inclined To, Consider Inferences From Rolke's Decision To Terminate Appellant's Employment In Part Based On Appellant's March 23 Statement " 'oh, Don't Take Off For Good Friday Though' ": (a) Does The Record On Appeal Support Application Of Such An Inference?; And (b) What Effect Does This Inference Have On Appellant's Responsive Burden?no Later Than 4:00 P.m. This Friday, July 24, 2020, Each Party Shall File And Serve A Supplemental Letter Brief, Not To Exceed Three Single-spaced Typewritten Pages-with Legal Authority And Record References Where Appropriate. No Background Or Introduction Is Necessary. The July 24, 2020 Deadline Will Not Be Extended.'
Case number D075026 was filed in the California 4th District Court of Appeal on Nov. 6, 2018.