 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morejon v. Terry Hinge and Hardware11/4/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
The trial court granted summary judgment on appellant Esmeralda Morejon's complaint against respondent Amersham, Inc. dba Terry Hinge and Hardware (Amersham) for medical condition discrimination, physical disability discrimination, and termination in violation of public policy. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
There are no material disputes about the following facts. Respondent manufactures industrial and non-industrial hinges at a facility in Van Nuys. On November 4, 1999, respondent hired Morejon for what was initially expected to be a one-month period of employment. Morejon's employment application stated that she was eligible to work in the United States, and she also submitted a Social Security card and resident alien card. However, Morejon is an undocumented alien, and the cards that she presented were invalid.
Morejon assembled hinges for respondent from November 1999 until August 2000. She sometimes requested time off, and each request was granted. Morejon was terminated in August 2000.
On August 6, 2001, Morejon filed her complaint against respondent. The complaint contains causes of action for violation of FEHA and wrongful termination in contravention of public policy, and sought compensatory and punitive damages. It alleges that respondent terminated her shortly after she told a supervisor that she needed a medical leave to undergo surgical removal of a cancerous ovary.
On August 9, 2002, respondent filed its motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. The motion contended that Morejon's claims failed because respondent had a legitimate business reason for terminating her: a downturn in respondent's business. It also cited evidence that Morejon is an undocumented alien, and argued that the after-acquired-evidence rule and unclean hands doctrine barred her claims. Finally, the motion contended that her requests for lost wages, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages were improper because she had failed to mitigate damages, she had no evidence of emotional distress, and the employees involved in her discharge were not respondent's managing agents.
Following a hearing on the motions, the trial court granted summary judgment on September 9, 2002. Citing Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 833 and Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 620, the trial court concluded that the after-acquired-evidence rule and unclean hands doctrine barred Morejon's claims. Judgment was filed on September 17, 2002.
DISCUSSION
Morejon contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. She is mistaken.
A. Standard of Review
"A summary adjudication motion is subject to the same rules and procedures as a summary judgment motion. Both are reviewed de novo. [Citations.]" (Lunardi v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 807, 819.)
"A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the record establishes as a matter of law that none of the plaintiff's asserted causes of action can prevail. [Citation.]" (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107.) "`Review of a summary judgment motion by an appellate court involves application of the same three-step process required of the trial court. [Cita
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|