 |
 |
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
and (2) that, although not required to, it made efforts to help her find another position within Children's. For this conclusion we rely on Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, 1732, where the employer carried its burden of setting forth a legitimate nondiscriminatory motive for terminating the plaintiff as part of a reduction in force when it submitted evidence that (1) there were specific grounds for eliminating the plaintiff's position and (2) the plaintiff was not hampered from trying to find another position within the company. Under these circumstances, "[the employer's] showing demonstrated, without internal inconsistency, that had implemented the reduction in force which led to [plaintiff's] layoff in a rational and methodical manner." (Ibid.)
Sanchez argues that Children's did not carry its burden because much of the evidence it relies upon is inadmissible and should have been stricken in response to her motion to strike in the trial court. Specifically, Sanchez challenges the following evidence:
(1) Statements in the declaration of Children's human resources manager Cathy Nugent (Nugent declaration) giving details about the termination of 10 older employees, which, according to Sanchez, demonstrates Children's "pattern and practice" of age discrimination;
(2) A statement in the Nugent declaration that the average age of employees terminated in the reduction in force was 36.70 years old; and
(3) A statement in Niedzwiecki's declaration that Patient and Family Services did not formally exist as a department before March 2003, but rather was a "cost center" through which Sanchez was paid.
Sanchez argues that absent the evidence she challenges, Children's did not demonstrate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for her termination. We disagree. As we shall discuss, the evidence was not necessary for Children's to carry its burden and, in any event, there is no merit to Sanchez's evidentiary challenges.
1. The Evidence Sanchez Challenges Is Not Necessary for Children's to Show a Nondiscriminatory Basis for Sanchez's Termination
The first and second items of disputed evidence are Nugent's statements about the 10 terminated older employees and the average age of employees subject to the reduction in force. This evidence is relevant as a rebuttal to Sanchez's argument that statistical evidence shows discrimination, but it does not form a necessary part of Children's burden under the second step of the McDonnell Douglas framework. Children's burden in that step is merely to put forth a legitimate reason for Sanchez's termination. (See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 355-356.) Regardless of whether Children's has terminated a disproportionate number of older workers, Children's has still identified its ongoing reduction in force as a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the elimination of Sanchez's position.
The third item of evidence - Niedzwiecki's statement that Patient and Family Services did not exist as a formal department before March 2003 - also does not form a necessary part of Children's explanation for why it terminated Sanchez. Instead, it is relevant to rebutting Sanchez's claim that Ortega - a significantly younger worker - was hired to replace Sanchez. The rebuttal of Sanchez's argument is not part of Children's burden in putting forth a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Sanchez's termination. Moreover, even if the comparison between Ortega's and Sanchez's duties is relevant to Children's burden, that comparison does not depend on whether Patient and Family Services was a formal department at the time Sanchez was terminated. The important point of compar
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.
|
|