61 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,340 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,408 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 113,170 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,222 times 95 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
Livadas v. Bradshaw
512 U.S. 107 (1994) Cited 1,590 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding there was no section 301 preemption because a wage rate provision of the CBA only had to be referenced to compute the proper damages
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
401 U.S. 424 (1971) Cited 2,763 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 703(h) does not protect use of testing requirements with a disparate impact on racial minorities where the tests were not shown to be related to job performance
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.
281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,799 times
Holding that summary judgment was appropriate even where the decision-maker's reason is "foolish or trivial or even baseless"
San Diego Unions v. Garmon
359 U.S. 236 (1959) Cited 2,545 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"
Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.
36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,532 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."
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 705 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,909 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 158 - Unfair labor practices
29 U.S.C. § 158 Cited 10,272 times 80 Legal Analyses
Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355
Section 157 - Right of employees as to organization, collective bargaining, etc.
29 U.S.C. § 157 Cited 3,279 times 97 Legal Analyses
Granting employees the right to engage in or refrain from engaging in union activity
Section 1140 - Interference with protected rights
29 U.S.C. § 1140 Cited 2,084 times 15 Legal Analyses
Making it unlawful to “discharge ... any person because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to [ERISA]”
Section 201 - Computation and payment of wages upon discharge
Cal. Lab. Code § 201 Cited 1,754 times 20 Legal Analyses
Providing that, "[i]f an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately"
Section 132a - Declared policy of state
Cal. Lab. Code § 132a Cited 219 times 8 Legal Analyses
Coming within Division 1, regarding the Department of Industrial Relations, Chapter 5, which sets forth the Division of Workers' Compensation, and making it illegal for employers to discharge, threaten to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he or she has filed or made known an intention to file a claim for workers' compensation, or because the employee "has received a rating, award, or settlement"
Section 1198.5 - Right of employee to inspect and receive copy of personnel records
Cal. Lab. Code § 1198.5 Cited 126 times 15 Legal Analyses
Defining "personnel records" as those files "that the employer maintains relating to the employee's performance or to grievances concerning the employee"

Carolyn Medina v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group et al

61 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

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 there was no section 301 preemption because a wage rate provision of the CBA only had to be referenced to compute the proper damages

Holding that § 703(h) does not protect use of testing requirements with a disparate impact on racial minorities where the tests were not shown to be related to job performance

Holding that summary judgment was appropriate even where the decision-maker's reason is "foolish or trivial or even baseless"

Holding that "the States as well as the federal court must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board" if "an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA]"

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 that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Granting employees a wage increase without bargaining with Local 355

Granting employees the right to engage in or refrain from engaging in union activity

Making it unlawful to “discharge ... any person because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to [ERISA]”

Providing that, "[i]f an employer discharges an employee, the wages earned and unpaid at the time of discharge are due and payable immediately"

Defining "personnel records" as those files "that the employer maintains relating to the employee's performance or to grievances concerning the employee"