Francisco Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, Erroneously Sued as Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. Today, the majority levies a blow to our important Title VII protections when it erroneously holds that Francisco Vasquez (“Vasquez”) was unable to show that racially discriminatory comments by a supervisor are evidence of discriminatory intent. Despite the blatant evidence of discrimination put forth by Vasquez, the majority errs by holding that Vasquez was unable to show that his employer’s stated reason for his job transfer was pretextual. Similarly, the majority inappropriately places a time limit on retaliation cases by holding that Vasquez did not show a causal link between the protected activity and his transfer solely because the latter occurred thirteen months after the former. Finally, the majority errs by dismissing Vasquez’ hostile work environment claim as a matter of law. In so doing, it improperly downplays the pervasiveness of the hostile environment created by the ongoing harassing conduct of Kelly Berglund (“Berglund”) and wholly fails to address the role that Vasquez’ employer played in sanctioning, rather than correcting, the harassment in violation of Title VII.

I. Dispakate Treatment Claim

I disagree with the majority’s…

Opinion by Judge T.G. NELSON. Dissent by Judge FERGUSON.

Francisco Vasquez, a deputy probation officer at a Los Angeles County youth detention center, brought this action against the County, alleging that the County violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against him on the basis of his national origin, subjecting him to a hostile work environment, and retaliating against him for filing discrimination charges. The district court granted the County’s summary judgment motion, and Vasquez appeals. We affirm the district court.

I

Francisco Vasquez is a Deputy Probation Officer, Level I (DPO I), who works for the County of Los Angeles at its Dorothy Kirby Center (DKC). DKC is a detention facility for youth who have committed less serious crimes. The youth live at DKC in various cottages, and the DPOs are assigned to a particular cottage or to the field, where they rotate between cottages. Vasquez was assigned to “turquoise cottage” during the events that led to this lawsuit.

Kelly Berglund was employed at DKC as a DPO II, and was also assigned to turquoise cottage. A DPO II has more supervisory responsibilities and takes on more complex cases than a DPO I.…

349 F.3d 634 Francisco VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, erroneously sued as Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-56803. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 4, 2001 — Pasadena, California. Filed November 7, 2003. As Amended: January 2, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Susan D. Salisbury, Rosemead, California, for the plaintiff-appellant. Barry M. Wolf, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, LLP, Beverly Hills, California, for the defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-08542-MMM. Before: WARREN J. FERGUSON, THOMAS G. NELSON, and WILLIAM W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 1 Opinion by Judge THOMAS G. NELSON; Dissent by Judge FERGUSON. ORDER 2 The Opinion filed on November 7, 2003, is amended as follows: 3 1. On slip Opinion page 15959, line 14, please insert "or circumstantial" between "direct" and "evidence". 4 2. On slip Opinion page 15960, line 7, please insert the following sentence before "Therefore": "To the extent that Berglund's…