 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Peacock v. Glovia International11/18/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
In this employment discrimination case, the trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence that appellants' employment was terminated because of their age. We agree with the trial court and affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Glovia International, Inc., develops, sells and implements software solutions for business enterprises. In the 1990's, Glovia marketed a system named "Enterprise Resource Planning" (ERP). ERP is a business software designed to integrate all departments and functions of a company into a single computer system that can simultaneously serve the particular needs of each department.
Glovia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fujitsu Systems Business of America, which in turn is owned by Fujitsu Limited. Glovia in its current form came into existence in May 1997; it had numerous predecessors over a span of years.
Appellant Martha Peacock was hired by Glovia as a staff accountant in June 1997. Appellant Norman Petrucci started with Glovia in June 1997 as a "Managing Business Consultant." Peacock and Petrucci were both terminated in October 2001, when Peacock was 60, and Petrucci was 59 years old.
Glovia claims that it experienced serious financial difficulties in 2000 and 2001, and that this fact caused the company to lay off employees, including appellants, during the year 2001. Both Peacock and Petrucci dispute this. They claim that Fujitsu provided significant financial support to Glovia with capital infusions, loan guarantees and loans. Whether this actually controverts Glovia's statement that it was experiencing financial difficulties is subject to question, since there would have been no need for "significant financial support" unless Glovia had financial problems. In any event, both appellants admit that beginning in the year 2000, Glovia began to look for, and implement, ways to reduce expenses.
The economy measure that affected Peacock was Glovia's decision to outsource the payroll function. (See fn. 1, ante.) Peacock was the only Glovia employee who performed payroll-related duties. The outsourcing of the payroll function was discussed throughout 2000 and 2001. Peacock was part of these discussions. In May 2001, Glovia made the decision to outsource this function. It was anticipated that the transition to outsourcing payroll would be made by January 2002.
It is undisputed that in May 2000 Glovia management suggested that Peacock "cross-train" in other accounting areas in order to increase her ability to undertake duties other than the payroll. Another worker, Denise Aguayo, who eventually assumed some of Peacock's functions, was brought in to cross-train in the payroll function. It is undisputed that Aguayo had been recently promoted to senior accountant, that she was highly regarded and that she was taking accounting classes at night. However, Peacock disputes Glovia's claim that Aguayo was a more skillful accountant than Peacock.
The first "reduction in force" was made in June 2001. Glovia states that this was done to "address its [Glovia's] financial situation." Eleven regular and three temporary and part-time employees were terminated in June 2001. While it is undisputed that young (under 40) as well as older employees were included in this lay-off, the proportion of young to old i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|