Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—RACE—E.D. Ca.: City of Sacramento prevails against racial discrimination claim brought by firefighter, (Aug 1, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

Low performance reviews and alleged cursing, criticism, and ridicule by supervisors was not enough to constitute an adverse employment action.

A California federal court granted summary judgment for the City of Sacramento on a firefighter’s claim for racial discrimination, agreeing with the employer that the firefighter failed to show an adverse employment action. The court rejected the employee’s contention that low performance reviews constituted an adverse action. It also granted summary judgment on the employee’s state FEHA claim alleging individual liability for racial harassment against his supervisors, agreeing that the firefighter had not demonstrated enough facts to support a claim for their individual liability. Addressing various factors, the court held that the supervisors’ conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to warrant personal liability (Gildersleeve v. City of Sacramento, et al., No. 2:22-cv-02145-JAM-AC (E.D. Ca. July 28, 2025)).

Quizzed and ridiculed. A firefighter who has worked for the City of Sacramento since 2005 claimed he was discriminated against by his employer and by two of his supervisors, alleging that the supervisors were dismissive and cold towards him; would curse, criticize, and ridicule him; and would give him surprise quizzes. During his rotations, he had received some negative performance reviews, but these ratings did not impact his ability to pass probation. The employee did not allege or attribute any racially offensive statements to the supervisors, nor did he allege that he was ever terminated, demoted, suspended, had his pay reduced, or denied promotion during his employment with the city.

In his lawsuit, he alleged racial discrimination under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). He also filed a claim against the supervisors individually, as permitted by state law, for failure to prevent racial discrimination/harassment under the FEHA. The employer and the supervisors moved for summary judgment.

No adverse action. The court first granted summary judgment on the firefighter’s claim for racial discrimination based on disparate treatment, agreeing with the employer that the employee failed to show an adverse employment action. It rejected the employee’s contention that low performance reviews constituted an adverse action.

“A low performance review, standing alone, without impact on the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment does not amount to an adverse employment action,” the court stated. In this case, the negative performance reviews identified by the employee “cannot be said to have materially affected his employment because he was able to progress through his station rotations and, after a temporary setback due to an injury, eventually achieved promotion.” Because any reprimands or negative reviews did not did not ultimately impact his “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” the employee failed to show an adverse employment action.

No individual liability. The court also granted summary judgment on the employee’s state FEHA claim alleging individual liability for racial harassment against his supervisors, agreeing that the employee had not demonstrated enough facts to support a claim for their individual liability. The supervisors’ conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to warrant personal liability, the court explained.

In his complaint, the employee alleged that the supervisors consistently treated him with coldness and contempt, just as they did with the only other Black personnel at Station 6, and that they personally witnessed the employee being subjected to verbal abuse at the station but failed to intervene or offer any support. The employee also claimed that both supervisors mocked and criticized him, joining other White firefighters in making disparaging comments during presentations and at the dinner table. In addition, one of the supervisors purportedly relied on the other’s reports to include negative remarks in the employee’s probationary evaluation and circulated unfavorable information about the employee to others.

However, the employee presented no evidence of physical threats by the two supervisors, the court explained, nor any racial comments or discriminatory actions, and there was no evidence that the supervisors’ actions unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work performance. Considered in the light most favorable to the employee, the court explained, “no reasonable jury could find that [either supervisor] personally participated in the creation of a racially hostile work environment or that they substantially assisted or encouraged others to create and maintain a racially hostile work environment.”

The case is No. 2:22-cv-02145-JAM-AC.

Attorneys: Manolo H. Olaso (Law Offices of Johnny L. Griffin III) for Waris Gildersleeve. Serena M. Warner (Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff) for City of Sacramento, Brian Brust and David Lauchner.

Companies: City of Sacramento

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination CoverageLiability PublicEmployees CaliforniaNews