Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School Dist

In Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School Dist. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 189, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's race and age discrimination claims and found the plaintiff had breached his employment contract. (Caldwell, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 193.) On appeal, neither the special verdict form nor any claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy was at issue. Instead, the issue on appeal pertained to the import at trial of the "shifting burdens of proof applicable to claims of 'disparate treatment' employment discrimination which rely on circumstantial evidence to prove discriminatory intent." (Id. at p. 195.) The trial court in Caldwell had instructed the jury on the three phases of analysis for discrimination claims (see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802-804 (McDonnell Douglas): initially, the plaintiff must carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination; the burden then shifts to the employer to produce evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action; and then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer's stated reason was a pretext. (Caldwell, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at pp. 196-198.) The appellate court held this instruction was erroneous, because whether the plaintiff had met his prima facie burden, and whether the employer had rebutted the prima facie showing with evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason, were questions of law for the trial court, not questions of fact for the jury. (Id. at p. 201.) "In short, if and when the case is submitted to the jury, the construct of the shifting burdens 'drops from the case,' and the jury is left to decide which evidence it finds more convincing, that of the employer's discriminatory intent, or that of the employer's race- or age-neutral reasons for the employment decision." (Id. at p. 204.) The court further explained that, by the time a case is submitted to a jury, the plaintiff has already established a prima facie case and the employer has already proffered a nondiscriminatory reason, or otherwise the claim would have been resolved as a matter of law before trial. (Id. at pp. 203-204.) The jury decides only "the ultimate issue of whether the employer's discriminatory intent was a motivating factor in the adverse employment decision." (Id. at p. 205.)