Page 1
Sexual Orientation Discrimination Suit Against Christian Corporation Properly Revived—C.A.
Opinion Says Plaintiff Raised Triable Issue as to Employment Claim Where Employer Affiliated With Loma Linda University Adopted New Sexuality Policy Months Before Termination
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
REGINA MENDOZA plaintiff |
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held Friday that a defense summary judgment motion was properly defeated in a lawsuit filed by a lesbian former employee of a company affiliated with Loma Linda University, a Seventh-day Adventist institution, saying that the plaintiff had established a triable issue of fact as to whether her termination was motivated by illegal animus rather than a desire to save money.
In an unpublished opinion authored by Justice Martin N. Buchanan, the court declared that the circumstances of her termination—including the firing of another female employee with whom the plaintiff says she had an affair—and the organization having just adopted an “expressly discriminatory sexual standards policy” sufficiently supported a inference of bias.
The court also rejected the group’s assertion that it was entitled to judgment in its favor due to a California law exempting religious non-profits from the anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), as the defendants are registered as nonprofit religious corporations with the Office of California Secretary of State. The exemption, found at Government Code §12926(d), provides:
“ ‘Employer’ does not include a religious association or corporation not organized for private profit.”
Pointing to a carve-out in §12926.2 for “a religious corporation…with respect to persons employed…to perform duties, other than religious duties, at a health care facility operated by the religious…corporation for the provision of health care,” Buchanan opined that “a reasonable trier of fact” could determine that the exception applied even though the plaintiff worked in a supply services capacity rather than in patient care.
New Trial Motion
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Michael A. Sachs at first granted a defense motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff Regina Mendoza had failed to establish pretext after the defendants—Loma Linda University Shared Services and Loma Linda University Medical Center at Murrieta—had shown a legitimate, cost-cutting motivation for her firing. He denied a motion for reconsideration, but later partially granted a new trial, largely nullifying the grant of summary judgment.
Mendoza began working in the supply chain department of the Murrieta center in 2011. In 2018, the university consolidated the previously separate finance and supply chain departments for all of its hospital entities into Shared Services.
Following the restructuring, she continued working at the Murrieta facility but was promoted, in February, to the role of director. Assistant Vice President Joshua Lund became her direct supervisor.
Romantic Relationship
In late 2016 or early 2017, Mendoza claims she began a romantic relationship with a coworker, Rosemary Withem, a fact she says was discussed around the office.
In April 2018, Shared Services adopted the following policy:
“Employees…of Loma Linda University Shared Services are expected, in their work, teaching, influence, and example to uphold Christian sexual standards as held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. [Shared Services] believes that God’s ideal for sexuality is achieved when sexual expression is limited to a man and a woman who are husband and wife, committed in lifelong marriage. Premarital and extramarital sexual expression and conduct are to be chaste, and behaviors that suggest otherwise are to be avoided. Unchaste conduct is contrary to the ideals of [Shared Services] and will result in disciplinary action.”
Four months later, she was told her job was being eliminated. Lund submitted a declaration indicating that he was not aware of the sexual standards policy when he fired Mendoza, and that the decision was made simply on economic grounds, citing the fact that, after the restructuring, the company had three directors in supply services.
Withem’s job was terminated a few days later.
Pretextual Reason
Buchanan wrote:
“Defendants proffered evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for dismissing Mendoza: cost savings for the restructured supply chain department under Shared Services. But Mendoza has also carried her burden of establishing a triable issue of fact as to whether this asserted reason was untrue or pretextual.”
He opined:
“Mendoza had transferred to Shared Services and been promoted as part of the restructuring in February 2018, just two months before Shared Services adopted its Christian Sexual Standards Policy. Yet defendants claim the same restructuring suddenly resulted in the elimination of her position only a few months later….[A] factfinder could have reasonable grounds to doubt that the restructuring was the true reason for Mendoza’s termination.”
Saying that “Shared Services had an explicitly discriminatory policy at the time,” the jurist said:
“While Lund claimed he did not know about the policy, ‘summary judgment may be denied in the discretion of the court…if a material fact is an individual’s state of mind, or lack thereof, and that fact is sought to be established solely by the individual’s affirmation thereof.’…The trial court had the discretion to, and implicitly did, disregard Lund’s claimed lack of knowledge because it was the only evidence presented on his own knowledge of the policy.”
No Bias
As to Lund’s claim that he could not be found to be biased against Mendoza when he had just hired her a few months prior and wrote her a “stellar letter of reference,” Buchanan commented:
“Mendoza’s claim does not depend on Lund’s personal animus, however, as her principal contention is that defendants acted pursuant to an expressly discriminatory policy, not Lund’s preferences. In addition, the record reflects that Lund consulted with [others] about the decision, suggesting that other actors influenced his decision making.”
Under these circumstances, he concluded:
“Given Shared Services’ expressly discriminatory policy and the circumstances of Mendoza’s termination, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that she was actually terminated for discriminatory reasons.”
As to the religious-corporation exemption, the justice reasoned:
“To the extent defendants contend that Shared Services did not operate [Murrieta] Medical Center because it ‘is not a hospital, doctor’s office, medical clinic, or surgical center,’ we think this would be an unduly narrow interpretation not warranted by the plain language of the statute….We see no reason to restrict the plain meaning of ‘operate[ ]’ in a manner that would exclude an employee who worked at a health care facility and for an organization that provides core operational functions to that facility.”
Presiding Justice Judith McConnell and Justice Terry B. O’Rourke joined in the opinion.
The case is Mendoza v. Loma Linda University Shared Services, D083320.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company