 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Culbreath v. Department of Water Resources3/20/2002
(i).
The Department moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, concluding: "Defendant has produced evidence that there were legitimate business reasons for the reduction in plaintiff's mileage allotment; the change in reporting locations; the assignment of a two-person crew instead of a four-person crew on the Edmonston job; the temporary shut-down of the rewind crew, and the denial of a promotion. Some of the actions were taken before the alleged incident in the parking lot, and thus, a fortiori, could not have been taken in retaliation for plaintiff's reactions to the incident. None of the other alleged acts of retaliation rise to the level of adverse action." The court also found Culbreath provided no evidence these business reasons were pretextual. The court concluded: "Plaintiff's statement in her declaration that she was excluded from the rewind crew when it resumed work is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in light of her letter to defendant declining to participate."
Following entry of judgment, Culbreath filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate if the supporting papers are sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the moving party as a matter of law and the opposing party presents no evidence giving rise to a triable issue of any material fact. To prevail on a summary judgment motion, a defendant must conclusively negate a necessary element of the plaintiff's case or establish a complete defense. The defendant has met his or her burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Where there is no material issue of fact to be tried and the sole question before the court is one of law, it is the duty of the trial court to hear and determine the issue of law. In review, we make our own independent determination of the construction and effect of the papers submitted. (Armato v. Baden (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 885, 893.)
B. Retaliation Claim
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) prohibits discrimination in employment because of religious creed and makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to retaliate against a person because the person has opposed such discrimination or has testified or assisted in a proceeding brought to redress such discrimination. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h) (formerly subd. (f)); Flait v. North American Watch Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 475-476.)
According to Culbreath, her opposition to the Department's religious discrimination of co-worker Sanchez constituted protected conduct. Culbreath argues she demonstrated a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the Department retaliated against her for engaging in protected conduct.
To avoid summary judgment on a claim of unlawful retaliation, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation. After the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate nonretaliatory explanation for its acts. The plaintiff must then show the defendant's proffered explanation is merely a pretext for the illegal retaliation. (Flait v. North American Watch Corp., supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 476; Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051.)
To establish a prima facie case, Culbreath must show (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) thereafter, the Department subjected her to a materially adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link exists bet
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|