A California appellate court has issued a mixed ruling in a case involving allegations of workplace retaliation. The complaint, filed by Rhotunda Conda in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 3, 2024, against her former employer Xsolla (USA), Inc., claims that she was terminated in retaliation for investigating complaints of discrimination and harassment.
Rhotunda Conda's lawsuit against Xsolla (USA), Inc. centers around her termination after she initiated an investigation into employee allegations of a hostile work environment, harassment, and retaliation. Conda argues that her firing was directly linked to these investigations, which she asserts were protected activities under the Federal Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and California Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5. According to the court documents, Conda informed Xsolla’s CEO, Aleksandr Agapitov, about the complaints in September 2018 and intended to investigate them further. Agapitov reportedly reacted with hostility, questioning why she was conducting an investigation and demanding that she cease her efforts.
Conda’s case hinges on several key legal points. To succeed on her FEHA retaliation claim, she must demonstrate that she engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action (her termination), and that there was a causal link between the two. The court found sufficient evidence suggesting that Conda's termination could be linked to her protected activities. This included Agapitov’s irate response to her investigation plans and his subsequent decision to terminate her less than four months later.
In its defense, Xsolla argued that Conda was terminated due to poor performance rather than retaliatory motives. However, Conda presented substantial evidence indicating pretextual reasons for her firing. This included contradictory explanations from Xsolla executives regarding the reasons for her termination and positive performance evaluations contradicting claims of poor performance.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Xsolla on several counts related to retaliation under FEHA and Labor Code section 1102.5 as well as wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The court found triable issues of material fact regarding whether Conda engaged in protected activities and whether there was a causal link between those activities and her termination.
However, not all of Conda’s claims survived summary judgment. The appellate court upheld the dismissal of her claim under Labor Code section 98.6 concerning unpaid wages because she failed to demonstrate a good faith belief that she was entitled to a higher bonus than what she received. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and punitive damages due to insufficient evidence showing extreme or outrageous conduct by Xsolla.
The case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Specifically, the trial court is instructed to deny summary adjudication on Conda’s claims for FEHA retaliation, failure to prevent such retaliation, retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy while granting summary adjudication for Xsolla on other claims including those related to unpaid wages under Labor Code section 98.6 and IIED.
Representing Rhotunda Conda are attorneys Lanny M. Tron and Terry L. Tron from Tron & Tron law firm while Dennis Ehling and Caitlin Sanders from Blank Rome represent Xsolla (USA), Inc.. The trail case is presided over by Judge Richard L. Fruin Jr., with appellate judges Lee, Baker Acting, Moor concurring.