 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lim v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America9/14/2005
a claim for wrongful termination for future unearned wages," (2) Prudential paid Lim "all earned wages due at the time of her termination," and (3) Lim "cannot show a nexus between her termination and any purported intent to deprive her of wages." Prudential argued the cause of action for defamation fails because (1) any statements Prudential or Hsiao made about the reasons for Lim's termination "are truthful statements and therefore not actionable as defamation," and (2) statements made in the Form U-5 "are entitled to a qualified privilege, if not an absolute privilege" because they "are required statements to an interested party."
In opposition to the summary judgment motion, Lim argued: (1) The reasons Prudential gave for terminating her lacked substance and were pretextual; (2) given there was no good cause to fire her, Prudential "must have been" motivated by a desire to deprive her of commissions she earned on the Rodriguez cases; and (3) because Prudential did not have cause to fire her, the statement it made on the Form U-5 about the reasons for her discharge was false and defamatory. In its reply brief, Prudential argued Lim presented no evidence of pretext, only conjecture and speculation which is not sufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact.
At the February 25, 2004 hearing on Prudential's summary judgment motion, the trial court heard oral argument and granted the motion.
Hsiao's counsel told the court his client's involvement in the matter was limited to her signing the Form U-5. The trial court ordered the motion granted as to Hsiao as well.
On March 23, 2004, the trial court issued its order granting summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of defendants. In its order the court stated Prudential demonstrated Lim could not prevail on her cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy because (1) the evidence showed there was a "complete lack of a causal nexus between" Hsiao's alleged desire to deprive Lim of commissions and the decision to terminate Lim's employment, and (2) Lim "failed to state a sufficient public policy to support her claim." With respect to the second ground, the court explained Prudential paid Lim all wages she had earned up to the time of her termination, and "the payment of future unearned wages" is not a public policy which will support a wrongful termination claim. The court also stated Lim's cause of action for defamation fails because the statement on the Form U-5 is true and privileged and was made without malice.
DISCUSSION
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper where no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the trial court, a defendant "has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff . . . may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto."
"We review the trial court's decision de novo, considering all of the evidence the parties offered in connection with the motion (except that which the court properly excluded)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|