{"id":309,"date":"2026-01-03T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-03T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=309"},"modified":"2026-01-03T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-03T12:00:00","slug":"rivera-oreilly-auto-enterprises-ed-cal-allows-comparator-evidence-feha-disability-discrimination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=309","title":{"rendered":"Rivera v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises \u2014 E.D. Cal. Allows Comparator Evidence in FEHA Disability Discrimination Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Rivera v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Eastern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-03<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
1:24-cv-00333-JLT-SAB<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
FEHA disability discrimination, comparator evidence, motions in limine, FMLA\/CFRA leave, mitigation of damages<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The plaintiff, Alexis Rivera, was a store manager for O’Reilly Auto Enterprises who took medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California’s parallel statute, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). After his leave expired without a return date, the employer demoted him to assistant store manager. The plaintiff later sued under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), claiming his demotion and ultimate termination amounted to discrimination and retaliation based on his disability and protected medical leave.<\/p>\n

The case proceeded toward jury trial. Before trial, the employer filed a series of motions in limine \u2014 pre-trial requests to exclude specific categories of evidence \u2014 asking the court to bar evidence about three other employees the plaintiff sought to use as ‘comparators’ (employees treated more leniently than the plaintiff for similar conduct), to exclude evidence about the demotion as a basis for damages, and to cap economic damages at the date the plaintiff later took a job with Advance Auto Parts.<\/p>\n

Both parties had skipped summary judgment, leaving these contested questions to be resolved at trial. The court ruled on the motions in a single written order.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court mostly denied the employer’s motions, allowing the plaintiff to present his comparator and damages evidence at trial. As to the first comparator (a coworker named Kinser), the court rejected the employer’s claim that minor distinctions \u2014 different store departments, different supervisors, no formal complaint about a particular comment \u2014 made him too dissimilar to be relevant. The court reaffirmed Ninth Circuit law that whether two employees are ‘similarly situated in all material respects’ is generally a fact question for the jury, and the employer’s objections went to weight, not admissibility.<\/p>\n

As to the second comparator (an assistant manager named Mitchell), the court applied the same analysis and let the evidence in, except for three later disciplinary records that post-dated the plaintiff’s termination. As to the third comparator (a team member named Juarez), the court excluded the evidence because the plaintiff failed to develop the factual context needed to show similar discipline history.<\/p>\n

On the demotion, the court held there was a triable jury question about whether the demotion was prompted by protected leave or by later unprotected absence. On post-employment damages, the court rejected the employer’s theory that obtaining one short-term comparable job (here, a three-month stint at Advance Auto Parts) automatically cuts off all liability, citing California cases requiring the employee only to make reasonable efforts to maintain replacement work \u2014 mitigation is a jury question on which the employer carries the burden.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n