Heinemann

I respectfully dissent from part I, the majority’s determination that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Computer Associates on the retaliation claim. I concur in parts II and III.

In order to meet her burden, Heinemann must provide evidence which, when viewed in the light most favorable to her, proves 1) that one of the individuals involved in the decision to fire her was knew of her whistleblowing activity; 2) that the firing was motivated by it; and 3) that this animus was a “but-for” cause of the decision to fire her.

In this case, in light of the overwhelming evidence that Computer Associates offered to prove that Heinemann had forged the signature of a client on a sales contract, it is impossible to believe that Heinemann’s complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) was a “but-for” cause of her termination. 2 It seems clear that even if Heinemann had not filed a complaint with DFEH, she would have been terminated on the basis of the evidence of her forgery. 3 She should not be able to protect herself from termination on the basis of stealing from her employer simply by filing a complaint with a government…

MEMORANDUM *

I.

Laura Heinemann appeals from the district court’s grant of Computer Associates’ motion for summary judgment on Heinemann’s claims of retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), California Labor Code § 1102.5, and public policy. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995).

On review of a grant of summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Heinemann, and bear in mind that this court requires the non-moving party to produce “very little evidence” to overcome a motion for summary judgment in a discrimination case. Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115,1124 (9th Cir.2000).

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Heinemann must demonstrate that she engaged in a protected activity, that her employer subjected her to an adverse employment action, and that there was a causal link between the protected activity and the employer’s adverse action. See Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493 , 506 (9th *707 Cir.2000) (Title…