Leskinen v. The United States Department of Agriculture et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/26/19 ADOPTING 65 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING 40 Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment is entered for Defendant and case closed. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAURA LESKINEN,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

No. 2:18-cv-00453-TLN-KJN
ORDER

v.
SONNY PERDUE, Secretary of the United
States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant.
On June 21, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

18

served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and

19

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 65.) After being granted an

20

extension (ECF No. 67), Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations,

21

and Defendant responded (ECF Nos. 68, 69); these objections have been considered by the Court.

22

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an

23

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

24

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). As to any portion of the proposed

25

findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and

26

decides the matter on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir.

27

1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley

28

Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
1

Plaintiff asserted twelve objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and

1
2

recommendations, all but one concerning her claims for hostile work environment, quid pro quo

3

sexual harassment, and retaliation.1 (ECF No. 68.) The Court has reviewed the applicable legal

4

standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and

5

recommendations in full.

6

The magistrate judge recommended summary judgment on the hostile work environment

7

claim for failure to inform Defendant of her supervisor’s alleged conduct until some five–to–six

8

months after it occurred, and for lack of evidence of “severe” or “extreme” conduct. (ECF No. 65

9

at 16–18.) Summary judgment was also recommended on Plaintiff’s quid-pro-quo sexual

10

harassment claim for failure to present evidence of a connection between her supervisor’s actions

11

and Defendant’s failure to promote her (and its termination of her). (ECF No. 65 at 18–19.)

12

Finally, the magistrate judge recommended summary judgment on the retaliation claim, given

13

that Plaintiff’s attempts to secure promotion is not a protected activity under the law, and given

14

Defendant offered a non–pretextual reason for why it terminated her –– because she did not

15

maintain her course load under the internship guidelines. (ECF No. 65 at 19–23.) Against that

16

backdrop, Plaintiff raises twelve objections. She characterizes the first seven objections as

17

“omissions of evidence [and] misstatement[s] of testimony,” the eighth objection as a failure of

18

the magistrate judge to rule on an ancillary motion, and the last four as omissions of facts

19

regarding post–termination occurrences. (See ECF No. 68.)
Plaintiff’s first two objections concern her assertions that she obtained a “pre–employment

20
21

agreement” with Defendant. Her fourth objection concerns the omission by the magistrate judge

22

of a conversation Plaintiff had with a co–worker about her prospects for promotion. Her sixth

23

and seventh objections take issue with the magistrate judge’s characterization of Plaintiff’s

24

conversations with the office manager and regional director (and ancillary conduct of her

25

supervisor and a co–worker) concerning the internship requirements and Plaintiff’s termination.

26

1

27
28

The magistrate judge also resolved several ancillary motions brought by Plaintiff in the findings and
recommendations. (See ECF No. 65 at 4–13.) Plaintiff’s eighth objection concerns the magistrate judge’s ruling on
one of those motions. To the extent Plaintiff failed to respond to the magistrate judge’s ruling on the other ancillary
motions (see ECF No. 68.), the Court assumes the correctness of the findings, finds the applicable law supports the
recommendations, and adopts the findings and recommendations in full. See Orand, 602 F.2d at 208.

2

1

These objections appear to apply to the magistrate judge’s recommendations concerning

2

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. In brief, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff had presented a prima

3

facie case of retaliation, but that Defendant has proffered a legitimate, non–discriminatory reason

4

for her termination –– her failure to maintain the requisite number of classes under the internship

5

agreement. (ECF No. 65 at 20–21.) The magistrate judge found evidence that Defendant was

6

investigating her course load in the month before her termination, as well as evidence that the

7

office manager confirmed Plaintiff’s drop in her course load via email just prior to Plaintiff’s

8

termination. The magistrate judge then examined Plaintiff’s claim that this rationale was

9

pretextual and found that the bulk of Plaintiff’s evidence concerned her conversations with an

10

H.R. specialist in Washington D.C., but otherwise found no other evidence of pretext. The

11

magistrate judge considered Plaintiff’s assertions of a “pre–employment contract,” but found

12

them to be conclusory, and belied by the documentary evidence in the record –– as discussed by

13

the magistrate judge in footnote 5. (ECF No. 65 at 19.); see Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys./W.,

14

289 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that summary judgment may not rely on a party’s

15

“conclusory statement [regarding] a genuine issue of material fact, without evidentiary support”).

16

The magistrate judge thus recommended summary judgment on this claim under the framework

17

set forth in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 352

18

(2013). The magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations were proper, and so these

19

objections are overruled.

20

Plaintiff’s third and fifth objections appear to relate to her claim of hostile work

21

environment. However, the findings and recommendations cite to multiple paragraphs of her

22

declaration concerning her direct supervisor’s conduct and Plaintiff’s proffered corrections do not

23

alter the analysis. Cf. Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528, 540 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding severe conduct

24

where “Freitag witnessed inmates masturbating in an exhibitionist manner, oftentimes while they

25

directed verbal taunts and crude remarks at her.”); with Westendorf v. W. Coast Contractors of

26

Nev., Inc., 712 F.3d 417, 419 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding no hostile work environment where a

27

supervisor referred to the plaintiff’s duties as “girly work,” and a co-worker commented on

28

another woman’s breasts, asked whether women “got off” when they used tampons, said “women
3

1

were lucky because [they] got to have multiple orgasms,” and repeatedly told the plaintiff she

2

should wear a French maid’s costume). Further, Plaintiff’s conversations with her daughter do

3

not change the requirement to inform Defendant of the harassing behavior. Reporting it to her

4

office manager after she dropped below full time would not have given Defendant time to correct

5

the behavior as to Plaintiff. Campbell v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 892 F.3d 1005, 1017 (9th Cir.

6

2018) (“[T]he DOE may be held to account for the students' actions only if, after learning of the

7

harassment, it failed to take prompt corrective measures that were reasonably calculated to end

8

the harassment.”); Freitag, 468 F.3d at 539. Further, to the extent these objections relate to the

9

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation on Plaintiff’s quid–pro–quo claim, the evidence

10

Plaintiff points to does not alter the analysis –– that Plaintiff had no evidence to show a

11

connection between her supervisor’s conduct and Defendant’s failure to promote (and its

12

termination of Plaintiff). Thus, these objections are overruled.

13

Plaintiff’s eighth objection concerns the magistrate judge’s analysis of her objection to the

14

declaration of attorney Joseph Freuh. Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge failed to rule on

15

her objection. However, it is clear from the findings and recommendations that the magistrate

16

judge considered her objection, overruled it, and assigned the information contained therein the

17

proper weight –– which was none at all. (See ECF No. 65 at 8–9.) Accordingly, this objection is

18

overruled.

19

Plaintiff’s last four objections concern the magistrate judge’s omission of evidence

20

regarding actions taken after her termination in December 2016. Plaintiff refers to (a) a

21

conversation between the office manager and an attorney with the USDA; (b) a co–worker’s

22

knowledge of the supervisor’s inappropriate behavior; (c) the EEO investigator’s failure to

23

inquire about whether the supervisor sexually harassed a male intern who worked with Plaintiff;

24

and (d) information contained in a letter sent to Plaintiff from the USDA’s employment complaint

25

division that Plaintiff argues is incorrect. (ECF No. 68 at 11–15.) However, this information is

26

not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, as described in her Complaint and as analyzed by the magistrate

27

judge in the findings and recommendations. Thus, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.

28

Finally, Plaintiff asserts in her filing that a “question of breach of contract in Plaintiff’s
4

1

pre–employment agreement is one for the jury to decide.” (See ECF No. 68 at 16–17.) The

2

Court notes that Plaintiff has not raised a breach of contract claim. (See ECF No. 1.) To the

3

exent Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s findings on this ground, her objection is

4

overruled.

5
6

For these reasons, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and
recommendations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 65) are ADOPTED in full;

8

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED;

9

3. Judgment is entered for Defendant; and

10

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

11
12

Date: August 26, 2019

13
14
15

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5