32 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,751 times 100 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
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 5,022 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”
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) Cited 3,344 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."
Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.
36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,603 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."
Morgan v. Regents of University of California
88 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 659 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"
Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
7 Cal.4th 1238 (Cal. 1994) Cited 693 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff's "claim of whistle-blower harassment fails because he cannot demonstrate the required nexus between his reporting of alleged statutory violations and his allegedly adverse treatment"
Serri v. Santa Clara University
226 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 352 times 3 Legal Analyses
Affirming summary adjudication of harassment claims due to lack of "hostile or derogatory statements"
Barnett v. U.S. Air
228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 530 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer cannot prevail at the summary judgment stage if there is a genuine dispute as to whether the employer engaged in good faith in the interactive process"
Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist.
63 Cal.App.4th 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 489 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the statutory language of § 12940 does not "support recovery on . . . a private right of action where there has been a specific factual finding that [the alleged] discrimination or harassment actually occurred at the plaintiffs's workplace"
Hersant v. Department of Social Services
57 Cal.App.4th 997 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 495 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.
Section 437c - [Effective Until 1/1/2025] Motion for summary judgment
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c Cited 8,428 times 8 Legal Analyses
Ruling on summary judgment motion must be based on "papers submitted" with the motion
Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 Cited 2,897 times 11 Legal Analyses
Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"

Memorandum Points and Authorities

32 Cited authorities

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

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."

Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."

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"

Holding that plaintiff's "claim of whistle-blower harassment fails because he cannot demonstrate the required nexus between his reporting of alleged statutory violations and his allegedly adverse treatment"

Affirming summary adjudication of harassment claims due to lack of "hostile or derogatory statements"

Holding that "an employer cannot prevail at the summary judgment stage if there is a genuine dispute as to whether the employer engaged in good faith in the interactive process"

Holding that the statutory language of § 12940 does not "support recovery on . . . a private right of action where there has been a specific factual finding that [the alleged] discrimination or harassment actually occurred at the plaintiffs's workplace"

Ruling on summary judgment motion must be based on "papers submitted" with the motion

Stating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"