§Why CasetextPricing

Motion Summary Judgment Adjudication

undefined

25 Cited authorities

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,337 times   96 Legal Analyses
    Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

  2. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

    509 U.S. 502 (1993)   Cited 12,403 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

  3. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 4,985 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”

  4. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 3,319 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

  5. Morgan v. Regents of University of California

    88 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 652 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiff "must obtain from the [DFEH] a notice of right to sue in order to be entitled to file a civil action in court based on violations of FEHA"

  6. Serri v. Santa Clara University

    226 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 343 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Affirming summary adjudication of harassment claims due to lack of "hostile or derogatory statements"

  7. Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics

    46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 554 times
    Holding that "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more

  8. King v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

    152 Cal.App.4th 426 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 383 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer had no duty to accommodate employee who returned to work with a doctor's note releasing him back to "regular duties and hours" and who admitted he was able to "get the job done"

  9. Hersant v. Department of Social Services

    57 Cal.App.4th 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 493 times
    Holding that "to avoid summary judgment, an employee claiming discrimination must offer substantial evidence that the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action was untrue or pretextual, or evidence the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, or a combination of the two, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the employer engaged in intentional discrimination.

  10. Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc.

    163 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 336 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that elements of a common law disability discrimination claim are the same as those of a FEHA claim