24 Cited authorities

Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,294 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden
532 U.S. 268 (2001) Cited 5,583 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the temporal proximity requirement to establish a prima facie case "between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence" must be "very close"
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 5,003 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 3,330 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."
Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics
46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 555 times
Holding that "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more
Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist.
63 Cal.App.4th 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 487 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 494 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.
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
27 Cal.3d 167 (Cal. 1980) Cited 843 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that at-will employees may recover tort damages from employers if they can show they were discharged in contravention of fundamental public policy
Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc.
163 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 338 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that elements of a common law disability discrimination claim are the same as those of a FEHA claim
Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
74 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 385 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a finite leave of absence has been considered to be a reasonable accommodation under ADA, provided it is likely that following the leave the employee would be able to perform his or her duties"

Motion For Summary Judgment

24 Cited authorities

Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"

Holding that the temporal proximity requirement to establish a prima facie case "between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence" must be "very close"

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 "[t]he intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails" where "[t]he factual allegations . . . plead claims of discrimination" but not more

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"

Holding that at-will employees may recover tort damages from employers if they can show they were discharged in contravention of fundamental public policy

Holding that elements of a common law disability discrimination claim are the same as those of a FEHA claim

Holding that "a finite leave of absence has been considered to be a reasonable accommodation under ADA, provided it is likely that following the leave the employee would be able to perform his or her duties"