 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lim v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America9/14/2005
gainst Prudential and Hsiao is based solely on the portion of the Form U-5 signed by Hsiao which states Lim was discharged for "insubordination and a failure to conform to Company policies and procedures." Lim does not dispute Prudential was required to file the Form U-5 with the NASD after it terminated her employment. Moreover, the parties agree, to the extent the statement on the Form U-5 was made without malice, it is privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c) because it was made "to a person interested therein, (1) by one who is also interested, or (2) by one who stands in such a relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication to be innocent, or (3) who is requested by the person interested to give the information." Lim contends there are triable issues of material fact concerning whether Prudential and Hsiao made the statement with malice. We disagree.
As set forth above, Hsiao was not involved in the decision to terminate Lim's employment. Hsiao did not fill out the Form U-5 or have any input concerning its content. As Lim's immediate supervisor, Prudential asked her to sign the document. This was the extent of her involvement in the process. There is no evidence Hsiao made the statement (signed the document) with malice.
Lim argues Prudential made the statement with malice given its stated reasons for discharging her were pretextual. As discussed in the preceding section of this opinion, Lim has not presented any evidence of pretext. The evidence demonstrates Lim was insubordinate and violated at least one company policy. There is no evidence any of the persons who made the decision to terminate her had any malice towards her.
Defendants met their burden of showing both of Lim's causes of action lack merit. Lim did not show a triable issue of material fact with respect to either cause of action. Accordingly, summary judgment was proper.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are entitled to recover costs on appeal.
We concur: WOODS, J., ZELON, J.
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.
|
|