A California appellate court recently held that a burden shifting process did not apply to an employment discrimination claim where the plaintiff had not alleged discrimination on the basis of race. Quesada v. County of Los Angeles (Court of Appeal, Second District, California) (November 19, 2024).

Plaintiff Marlon Quesada, who worked as a deputy sheriff for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, was described by his supervisors as a “mediocre employee” who “did not have the best work ethic.” Nonetheless, after Quesada was passed over for promotion to a supervisory role multiple times, Quesada filed a petition for a traditional writ of mandate, arguing the department had denied him promotion on an improper basis. According to Quesada, the department had improperly considered a 2015 misconduct investigation that had been terminated by a statute of limitations.

At trial, Quesada argued his claim should be subject to the same burden shifting approach taken in racial discrimination cases. Under that approach, a plaintiff must carry the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by showing four factors: (1) they belong to a racial minority; (2) they applied and were qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) the employer rejected them; and (4) after the rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applications from others with the plaintiff’s qualifications. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802. Where a plaintiff makes this prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the employer to demonstrate a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting the employee. Id. If the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show the stated reason for rejection was mere pretext, and that racial discrimination was the driving factor. Id. at 804–07.

The appellate court rejected Quesada’s argument, however, finding that Quesada’s claim—that the department had improperly considered the terminated investigation—was “not analogous to the wrongs suffered by historically oppressed and disfavored groups.” Because Quesada had not alleged any form of racial discrimination, and because his claim was instead brought “as a law enforcement officer seeking a supervisory promotion,” there was no reason to use the burden shifting approach, as none of the concerns necessitating such an approach were present.

In its analysis, the court explained:

 The McDonnell Douglas approach has no basis in this case. Quesada is not claiming the Department discriminated against him on grounds of race or because he belongs to a historically oppressed and disfavored group. This is not a race case, and it is not akin to a race case.

Rather, Quesada claims the Department took too long to complete his discipline investigation but later, when evaluating him for promotion, considered their investigation anyway, which was improper. That is his only claim of discrimination.

The concerns that motivated the McDonnell Douglas rule are absent here. Quesada has framed his suit to place himself, not as a member of a historically oppressed and disfavored class, but as a law enforcement officer seeking a supervisory promotion.

Having found that Quesada’s claim had properly been subjected to the standard civil litigation approach—under which a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the elements of his claim by the relevant standard—the appellate court considered whether the trial court judgment was supported by substantial evidence. On this question, the appellate court answered yes, finding that the record reflected numerous proper bases for Quesada’s rejection. Indeed, Quesada had never achieved the highest potential grade in any evaluation during his career, and he had been suspended for misconduct on two separate occasions. 
 
Although the California appellate court rejected Quesada’s request for a burden shifting approach, the analysis highlights the procedural importance of the precise grounds upon which the burden shifting process applies. It is not a given that the burden shifting process applies in every employment discrimination context. It is in this regard that the analysis of the Quesada v. County of Los Angeles case is particularly instructive.