 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moreno v. County of San Joaquin2/4/2002
ve did not believe the County could make any reasonable accommodations to integrate Moreno into the work environment.
On August 21, 1995, the County terminated Moreno for violating the following regulations: fitness for duty, conduct unbecoming an employee in the public sector, disorderly or immoral conduct, incapacity due to mental or physical disability, insubordination, and violation of any lawful or reasonable regulation or order made and given by a superior officer.
PROCEDURE
On November 11, 1995, and December 1, 1995, Moreno's termination was arbitrated. The final decision upheld the termination as being for good cause. Moreno then submitted a discrimination complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). He received a right to sue notice on January 9, 1996. On May 9, 1997, Moreno filed his third amended complaint in this action.
On February 25, 2000, the County filed its motion for summary judgment. Moreno responded with an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the County's motion for summary judgment on April 18, 2000. It made the following legal findings concerning each cause of action:
(1) Cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The County terminated Moreno for good cause and in good faith, not on a pretextual basis as alleged by Moreno.
(2) Cause of action for racial discrimination. Moreno failed to allege sufficient credible evidence to raise a genuine, material issue of fact. In addition, Moreno's claim is time barred.
(3) Cause of action for sexual discrimination. Moreno failed to allege sufficient credible evidence to raise a genuine, material issue of fact. His claim is also time barred.
(4) Cause of action for discrimination for mental/physical disability. Moreno failed to allege sufficient credible evidence to raise a genuine, material issue of fact.
(5) Cause of action for emotional distress. Moreno failed to allege sufficient credible evidence to raise a genuine, material issue of fact.
On May 4, 2000, the County filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs. Moreno opposed this motion. On June 28, 2000, the trial court granted the County's request requiring Moreno to pay the County's attorneys fees and costs, totaling $30,934.17.
DISCUSSION
I. Wrongful Termination
" plaintiff alleging discriminatory termination under California's antidiscrimination statutory scheme must be able to survive the burden-shifting analysis set forth by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802-804 [93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824-1825, 36 L.Ed.2d 668] (McDonnell Douglas). [Citation.] By applying McDonnell Douglas's shifting burdens of production in the context of a motion for summary judgment, `the judge [will] determine whether the litigants have created an issue of fact to be decided by the jury.' [Citation.]
"`The burden-shifting system requires the employee first establish a prima facie case of . . . discrimination. If the employee does so, the employer is required to offer a legitimate [nondiscriminatory] reason for the adverse employment action. If it does not, then the employee prevails. [Citations.]' [Citation.]
"`When the employee has made this showing, the burden shifts to the employer to go forward with evidence that the adverse action was based on considerations other than . . . discrimination. When the employer offers evidence justifying the adverse action on a basis other than [discrimination], the burden shifts back to the employee to meet his ultimate obligation of proving that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|