The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 & 10. The Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to Issues Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7.
Plaintiff's Objections to Evidence: Nos. 1 to 32: OVERRULED.
Continuance: Plaintiff’s Request for Continuance is DENIED. Plaintiff failed to make a showing of good cause for a continuance of this motion. Hamilton v. Orange Cty. Sheriff's Dep't (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 759, 765. Issue No. 1: First Cause of Action for FEHA Harassment fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action at a matter of law:
Issue No. 2: Second Cause of Action for FEHA Discrimination fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action at a matter of law.
Shifting Burden of Proof: “California has adopted a three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court for trying employment discrimination claims that are based on the disparate treatment theory.” Trop v. Sony P
Hearing Date
July 01, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED as to Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 & 10. The Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to Issues Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7.
Plaintiff's Objections to Evidence: Nos. 1 to 32: OVERRULED.
Continuance: Plaintiff’s Request for Continuance is DENIED. Plaintiff failed to make a showing of good cause for a continuance of this motion. Hamilton v. Orange Cty. Sheriff's Dep't (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 759, 765. Issue No. 1: First Cause of Action for FEHA Harassment fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action at a matter of law:
Issue No. 2: Second Cause of Action for FEHA Discrimination fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action at a matter of law.
Shifting Burden of Proof: “California has adopted a three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court for trying employment discrimination claims that are based on the disparate treatment theory.” Trop v. Sony P