Two men who sought and were denied an appointment to fill a 2023 provisional vacancy on the Whittier Union High School District Board of Education can move forward with their gender discrimination suit, a judge has ruled.
Marcos Garcia and Gabriel Jimenez contend in their Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit that the trustees showed a clear preference for having a female replace retiring Trustee Ralph S. Pacheco. On Wednesday, Judge Daniel S. Murphy ruled that the pair can move forward for now with their claims for discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, equal protection and violation of the state Government Code.
The judge did dismiss the plaintiffs’ cause of action for violation of the Unruh Act, which applies to the rights of those visiting business establishments. The district had asked that the other four causes of action be dismissed as well, arguing that Garcia and Jimenez did not have the protections offered employees.
The judge found otherwise.
“Ultimately, plaintiffs allege that they were discriminated against in their applications for an appointment, which may be considered an employment position…,” the judge said. ” At the very least, the (lawsuit) has pled sufficient facts to raise a triable issue.”
In their suit brought last July 15, the plaintiffs allege that in deciding who to fill the vacancy in area 3 in June 2023, the board “improperly chose to hire and/or appoint an applicant and/or unlawfully failed to choose or hire plaintiffs because of sex and/or gender.”
One board member said, “What weighs heavy on me, and please excuse me for being bold, is that I’ve drawn my own conclusion, is that this board needs gender equity. And … choosing a woman would be important to me,” the suit states.
Another board member said that his final three choices included all females, including Josefina Canchola, who was ultimately appointed to serve through last November’s elections, when she was elected to a full term.
In his court papers, a WUHSD attorney stated that Garcia and Jimenez were not discriminated against.
“In reality, they were passed over simply because they were less qualified than other candidates,” according to the defense attorney’s pleadings, which further describe the plaintiffs as “disgruntled” and that they took the audio portion of the meeting when Canchola was appointed out of context.