 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flores v. Mobil Corp.1/31/2002
short-term disability for one year. He received 12 weeks of full salary and 40 weeks of half pay. Defendant also paid for plaintiff to attend a 26-week training course to become a microcomputer operations specialist. Plaintiff's short-term disability benefits expired on March 31, 1999. According to Mr. Brase, "At that time, there were no bargaining unit or other refinery jobs available for which [plaintiff] was qualified." Defendant presented evidence plaintiff was not qualified for a managerial or professional technical job; further, from 1996 through 1998, there were no clerical job openings at the Torrance facility and the refinery had downsized from 1200 to about 800 employees. When deposed, Mr. Brase testified as to job openings in defendant's facilities. Plaintiff was injured in August 1996. Plaintiff's employment was terminated in 1998. During that time frame: three positions became available; the two warehouse positions discussed above; and, in February 1998, a machinist job. However, plaintiff could not have performed the machinist job, even aside from his physical limitations, because he did not have the necessary technical skills.
Plaintiff's employment was terminated on April 1, 1999. He was advised of his right to apply for a family medical leave, but declined to do so. Plaintiff applied for and received long-term disability benefits.
III. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
The parties' summary judgment burdens of production were described by the Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850-851, as follows: " rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . A defendant bears the burden of persuasion that `one or more elements of' the `cause of action' in question `cannot be established,' or that `there is a complete defense' thereto. ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 437c, subd. (o)(2).) [ ] he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. . . . A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of the party in question. [Citation.]" (Fns. omitted.) Once the burden shifts to the plaintiff opposing the summary judgment motion, the plaintiff "must `set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to th cause of action . . . .' (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(2).)" (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849.) Further, the Supreme Court has held: "There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof." (Id. at p. 850, fn. omitted.)
We review the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo. (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 65, 67-68; Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1188, disapproved on another point in Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 853, fn. 19.) The Supreme Court has held, "In ruling on the motion, the court must `consider all of the evidence' and `all' of the `inferences' reasonably drawn therefrom ([Code Civ. Proc.,] § 437c, subd. (c)), and must view such evidence [citations] and such inferences [cit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|