 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County11/28/2001
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
We conclude the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We issue a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying summary judgment and enter a new order granting summary judgment for defendant.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff (real party in interest Hati Cantu) was born in 1950 in the Philippines. In 1970, she moved to the United States and became a naturalized citizen in 1981. She has a bachelor's degree in mathematics. From 1990 to 1995, she worked at Litton Industries as a financial analyst. Litton laid off plaintiff in 1995 during a reduction in force.
In 1996, defendant (petitioner Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (TMCC)) hired plaintiff as a temporary employee in collections. A few months later, plaintiff obtained a permanent position as assistant customer account representative. In June 1998, plaintiff was promoted to "Customer Account Representative" (CAR). Plaintiff received the 1998 promotion after being approached by a manager and asked to submit a written application.
On June 1, 1999, TMCC posted two openings for Senior CAR positions and accepted written applications. The two successful candidates, Jason Binando and Irma Stanley, both had submitted written applications, whereas plaintiff had not. Binando is younger than plaintiff, has less seniority than plaintiff, and is a Caucasian male. Stanley, according to plaintiff, is a 53-year-old Hispanic female with a very heavy Spanish accent, and has more seniority than plaintiff.
In August 1999, plaintiff went on vacation. Plaintiff failed to return from vacation, claiming disability due to stress. Plaintiff remains on stress disability leave.
Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH), claiming she was denied the 1999 Senior CAR promotion given to Binando due to her national origin. Plaintiff filed an amended claim adding sex and age discrimination.
After her DFEH claim was denied, plaintiff filed the present action alleging TMCC had failed to promote her due to her age and national origin in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, ยง 12900 et seq., FEHA). She also alleged a cause of action for discrimination based on age, sex, and national origin in violation of public policy.
TMCC moved for summary judgment or alternatively, summary adjudication, which the trial court denied. TMCC has petitioned for a writ of mandate. We issued both a temporary stay and an order to show cause.
THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
A. Discrimination under FEHA -- Failure to Promote
TMCC contended that its failure to promote plaintiff is not actionable discrimination, as a matter of law, because plaintiff never applied for the Senior CAR position. In support of this contention, Richard Reynolds, TMCC's Branch Operations Manager, declared as follows: Only two Senior CAR positions were available in May 1999. As required by TMCC policies and procedures, the two positions were posted and written applications were accepted. Plaintiff, however, never filed a written application and never informed management of her interest in the position. Accordingly, management never considered plaintiff for the posi
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.
|
|