 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sanchez v. Children's Hospital and Health Center9/14/2005
002.
Children's moved for summary judgment, submitting several declarations explaining that Sanchez was terminated as part of Children's reduction in force. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Children's, ruling that "plaintiff presents no evidence creating a triable issue that the legitimate reason offered by defendant was false (factually untrue.) Instead, plaintiff offers speculation and conjecture." Sanchez appeals.
DISCUSSION
I. Sanchez's Age Discrimination Claim
Sanchez brings her age discrimination claim under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) which makes it unlawful for an employer "because of the . . . age . . . of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." (Gov. Code, ยง 12940, subd. (a).)
"Because of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent federal precedent when applying our own statutes." (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354 (Guz).) To analyze disparate treatment employment discrimination claims brought under the FEHA, California courts follow the three-step burden-shifting analysis established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 (McDonnell Douglas) for federal discrimination cases. (See Guz, supra, at p. 355 & fn. 21.) Under that burden-shifting analysis, " irst, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant 'to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's rejection.' [Citation.] Third, should the defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." (Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981) 450 U.S. 248, 252-253 (Burdine), citing McDonnell Douglas, supra, at pp. 802, 804.)
In conducting our de novo review of the trial court's summary judgment ruling, we apply McDonnell Douglas's three-step burden-shifting analysis together with the burden-shifting analysis applicable to a summary judgment motion. (See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar) [A defendant satisfies its burden on summary judgment by showing "'one or more elements of' the 'cause of action' in question 'cannot be established,' or that 'there is a complete defense'" to that cause of action. If the defendant meets his initial burden, "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"].) Children's may meet its burden on summary judgment as to McDonnell Douglas's first step by pointing to a lack of evidence in support of plaintiff's prima facie case, and will prevail if Sanchez is unable to rebut that showing. (See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th 317, 374 (conc. opn. of Chin, J.) [noting differing approaches by lower courts, and concluding that a defendant satisfies its initial burden regarding plaintiff's prima facie case by showing that the plaintiff "cannot reasonably expect to obtain a prima facie case"].) Children's may also meet its burden by setting forth admissible evidence suf
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|