Daniel Rocha was first hired by the County of Fresno in 2005 to work as a social worker in its Department of Social Services (DSS). While employed at DSS, Rocha developed two injuries for which he required workplace accommodations. Specifically, in 2009, he began experiencing carpal tunnel syndrome and, in 2016, he developed a bulging disc in his back. DSS accommodated Rocha’s medical conditions, in part, by changing his work assignments and reducing his typing and computer time.

According to Rocha, he received positive performance reviews while at DSS. However, given his physical limitations and the extensive work requirements of his position at DSS, Rocha decided to seek transfer to the Fresno County Library, so he transferred to County Library as a senior staff analyst. He was to be trained in his new position by his direct supervisor, Business Manager Jeannie Christiansen. During his employment at County Library, Rocha developed a long list of grievances against Christiansen.

In January 2018, Rocha was given supervisory authority over a new hire, Rachel Acosta, during her probationary period. At Christiansen’s direction, Rocha put Acosta on a performance improvement plan and provided her with “weekly counseling memos to help improve her work.” The relationship between Rocha and Acosta deteriorated, leading to the intervention of Associate County Librarian Raman Bath and Cindy Freeland, a human resources representative.

Bath started a preliminary investigation but then put it on hold because he thought a “cooling off period” might resolve the issues. He would later receive additional information from Acosta that would cause him to resume and complete his investigation.

Soon after May 30, 2018, Rocha took time off for his back injury, and on June 13, 2018, Rocha filed a workers’ compensation claim relating to his carpal tunnel syndrome. After Rocha filed his workers’ compensation claim, County performed an ergonomic evaluation of his workspace. The resulting report indicated Rocha was not previously under any work restrictions. Several adjustments to his workstation were recommended, including, without limitation, an option to have a sit-stand desk and an ambidextrous mouse that could be operated by either hand. In addition, Rocha was advised to “[c]ontinue stretching and moving around throughout the day” and “[t]ake breaks and microbreaks.”

On August 8, 2018, Rocha filed an internal complaint against Christiansen. He alleged Christiansen had been belittling and degrading him for over a year and a half, overloading him with work, and sending him “negative and/or hostile e[-]mails” on a daily basis. In his HR complaint, Rocha recounted many of the issues he had previously made.

On August 29, 2018, County hired an outside investigator, Attorney Amy Oppenheimer, to investigate matters raised by Rocha in his HR complaint. Oppenheimer interviewed nine witnesses, and also reviewed a number of documents. Oppenheimer did not sustain any of Rocha’s accusations against Christiansen.

The situation between Rocha and others subsequently deteriorated. On February 21, 2019, County issued Rocha a notice of intended order for disciplinary action (notice of intended action) that recommended Rocha’s employment with County be terminated. In lieu of a Skelly conference, Rocha’s attorney of record provided a written response to the notice of intended action. Paul Nerland, who, at the time, was director of HR for County, served as a Skelly officer for County and conducted a Skelly review in connection with the notice of intended action.

Nerland stated he found no “evidence suggesting [Rocha’s] proposed termination was retaliatory or biased” and determined “Rocha had been insubordinate, and then was dishonest about his conduct when questioned”

On May 4, 2020, Rocha filed suit against County, alleging County had violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by (1) discriminating against him on the basis of his medical conditions and physical disability, (2) retaliating against him for making protected complaints pertaining to his medical conditions and physical disability, and (3) failing to prevent the alleged acts of discrimination and retaliation. County moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of the three causes of action in Rocha’s complaint. The trial court granted County’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in its favor.

Rocha appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the unpublished case of Rocha v. County of Fresno -.F084512 (July 2024).  

After reviewing Rocha’s appellate briefs, the Court of Appeal noted that with “only sparse exception, Rocha has failed to cite to any of the actual evidence he submitted in opposition to County’s motion in his appellate briefs.” and thus “deemed “Rocha’s near complete failure to provide citations to evidence and exhibits as a forfeiture of his claims on appeal. Bernard v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1203,1205 [“It is the duty of a party to support the arguments in its briefs by appropriate reference to the record, which includes providing exact page citations.”] “Notwithstanding, we address the merits of Rocha’s forfeited claims below.”

The employee cannot simply show that the employer’s decision was wrong or mistaken, since the factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent. [Citations.] Rather, the employee must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them “unworthy of credence,”

The Opinion concluded that “Rocha has not met his burden to provide substantial evidence that County’s reason for terminating his employment was untrue or pretextual as required.”

Injured Worker’s Failure to Cite Evidence in Record Forfeits Claim on Appeal