Flait v. North American Watch Corp

In Flait v. North American Watch Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467, Flait had worked successfully for several years as a sales representative. He was not a probationary employee. When the coworker complained about vulgar comments made to her by Flait's supervisor, Flait confronted the supervisor who terminated him in spite of his excellent performance because he was not a "'company man.'" (Id. at p. 472.) The appellate court reversed a grant of summary judgment, holding: ". . . there is sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that there is a causal link between Flait's attempt to perform his duties under Government Code section 12940 and his termination. The evidence showed that the same highly placed corporate officer who made the offending comments was also responsible for Flait's termination, which is probative of NAWC's knowledge that Flait had engaged in protected activity. The evidence also showed that Flait was terminated only a few months after he last confronted Pistner, though he had worked for the company for four years. This evidence is sufficient to withstand summary judgment on the issue of NAWC's retaliatory motives. Flait is not required to submit direct evidence of NAWC's intent so long as improper motive can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. " (Flait v. North American Watch Corp., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 478.)