In Morgan v. Regents of the University of California (2000) 88 Cal. App. 4th 52, the plaintiff was laid off, and he filed an administrative complaint alleging that his layoff was due to racial discrimination. (88 Cal. App. 4th at p. 57.) After an arbitrator found that legitimate business reasons motivated the layoff, the plaintiff unsuccessfully applied to be rehired, and he filed an employment discrimination action. (Id. at p. 58.) The Morgan court held that summary judgment was proper on his discrimination claims, reasoning, inter alia, that there were no triable issues regarding pretext because there was no evidence that the plaintiff was qualified for the positions that he had sought or that the decision makers who denied his applications for renewed employment knew of his prior discrimination complaint. (Id. at pp. 72-80.) In Morgan v. Regents of University of California, the appellant alleged retaliation because supervisors made the following comments: "It was poor judgment for appellant to use the grievance procedure and his doing so was 'probably a detriment' to his career; plaintiff would never be rehired because he had filed the grievance and . . . 'filing a grievance and the retaliation stuff may come up'; if he reapplied it was a waste of plaintiff's time to file applications for rehire." (Id. at p. 70.) The court disagreed, noting none of the supervisors were "authorized by the employer to speak on the subject they addressed," and none "were involved in the decisions not to rehire appellant." (Morgan, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 70.) Nor were the comments "general examples of unlawful company policy" because they were "speculation as to the likely outcome of appellant's job search by individuals who played no role in the decisions regarding that search." (Id. at pp. 70-71.)