 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moreno v. County of San Joaquin2/4/2002
the reason for the adverse action was . . . discrimination. This ultimate issue is decided on all the evidence. [Citations.]' [Citation.] California courts have disagreed upon the exact showing required by an employee to avoid summary judgment in the face of evidence by an employer of a [nondiscriminatory] reason for an adverse action. [Citation.] However, `the predominant view' . . . , with which we agree, is that `to avoid summary judgment, an employee claiming discrimination must offer substantial evidence that the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action was untrue or pretextual, or evidence the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, or a combination of the two, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the employer engaged in intentional discrimination.' [Citations.]
"Nor can the employee simply show the employer's decision was wrong, mistaken, or unwise. Rather, the employee `"must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them `unworthy of credence,' [citation], and hence infer `that the employer did not act for the [asserted] non-discriminatory reasons.' [Citations.]" [Citations.]'" (Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 798, 805-807, fn. omitted, italics omitted.)
For simplicity's sake, we will assume for the purpose of argument that Moreno made a prima facie showing of wrongful termination. We therefore move on to whether the County had good cause to terminate Moreno. The County terminated Moreno after he was involved in three incidents of misconduct. The decision was made after investigations were completed and psychological advice was sought. As will be seen, this evidence satisfied the County's burden to show good cause. Moreno, for his part, failed to show pretext or discriminatory animus, which failure prompted summary judgment.
Moreno argues the County did not have good cause to terminate him. He contends he was terminated in retaliation for the complaints he made about incidents of race and sex discrimination at work. Because Moreno's three incidents arose after he made such complaints, Moreno believes the incidents were simply a pretext the County used to terminate him without good cause. Moreno provides five factual allegations he claims demonstrate there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether or not the County had good cause to terminate him. We will consider each allegation:
(1) Moreno served the County for years without a mark on his record before he complained about harassment and discrimination. His incidents of misconduct arose only after he filed his complaints, and the incidents were encouraged and facilitated by the County. He therefore was really terminated for complaining about harassment and discrimination.
Moreno worked at Juvenile Hall from February 1988 to August 1994 without receiving a bad mark on his record. During his employment, he may have complained of sexual harassment and racial discrimination. His three incidents of misconduct did not occur until after these complaints were made.
Simply showing Moreno's misconduct occurred after he complained of discrimination, however, does not prove pretext. There is no evidence Moreno's acts of misconduct were related to his prior complaints. None of the incidents demonstrate the County set Moreno up to be insubordinate or unruly. The County's requests to Moreno, during each incident, such as "please move your car" and "please help at intake because it's busy," were reasonable and work-related.
The evidence
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.
|
|