 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sandhu v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.7/6/1994
ELIA, J.:
The issue before this court is whether Dale Sandhu, an "East Indian" from Punjab, India , can sue under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for race-based employment discrimination. Lockheed argued successfully below that Sandhu was Caucasian and therefore could not bring suit on a race theory. We reject this narrow definition of race and hold that a cognizable claim for race discrimination may be brought on the basis of Sandhu's allegations. Since we also conclude Sandhu's failure to check the national origin box on his administrative charge form is an amendable defect, we will reverse.
Facts and Procedural Background
Sandhu worked for Lockheed for eight years before it terminated his employment in 1990. In June 1991, Sandhu filed a charge of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On the charge form, Sandhu checked "race" and "age" as the causes of discrimination, and stated his belief that "I have been discriminated against because of my age (48) and race (Asian)." He alleged he had been laid off despite the fact that "my performance was as good as or better than similarly situated non-Asians who were retained," and that he "was better qualified than the younger, non-Asian individuals" who were selected for positions for which he applied post-termination.
In November 1991, DFEH issued Sandhu a "right to sue" letter.
On January 29, 1992, Sandhu filed a complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging that he had been "treated differentially and was thereby denied salary increases, promotions, given false performance evaluations, training, educational opportunities and transfers on account of plaintiff's race and/or national origin." The complaint described Sandhu as "East Indian."
Sandhu filed a first amended complaint on April 13, 1992. In this, as in his second and third amended complaints, Sandhu described himself as "East Indian." On August 10, 1992, the trial court sustained Lockheed's demurrer to Sandhu's first amended complaint with leave to amend. On December 1, 1992, Lockheed demurred to the third amended complaint, arguing that Sandhu was from India and because he was Caucasian, could not allege discrimination based on race.
On January 12, 1993, the trial court held a hearing on Lockheed's demurrer. The court concluded that "by definition, [Sandhu] is Caucasian," and that it was "under the impression that in an action under FEHA a person who is in fact Caucasian may not complain of race." Accordingly, the trial court overruled the demurrer, but ordered "all references to 'race' . . . [stricken] from the complaint without leave to amend," and allowed Sandhu twenty days to file an amended complaint.
Three days later, Lockheed produced a "personnel" document which classified Sandhu's race as Asian. Sandhu's counsel brought this document to the trial court's attention and asked it to reconsider its ruling. It apparently declined to do so.
On January 15, 1993, Sandhu filed his fourth amended complaint, alleging that he was "an East Indian male whose national origin is Punjab, India . . . . This action is brought pursuant to [FEHA] based on national origin discrimination." Once again, Lockheed filed a demurrer, arguing that Sandhu's failure to allege discrimination on the basis of national origin in his administrative charge was a jurisdictional prerequisite to his pursuit of a civil action. The trial court agreed, and on March 10, 1993, sustained Lockheed's demurrer without leave to amend and ordered a judgment of dismissal to be entered in its favor. Notice of entry of ju
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|