Motion by Defendant KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s complaint has alleged a variety of different causes of action, including for whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, violation of the FMLA and CLRA, and wrongful termination of public policy. However, all are subject to evaluation in a summary judgment motion to the McDonnell-Douglas burden- shifting test. Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354 [discrimination and retaliation claims subject to McDonnell-Douglas]; Greer v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (N.D.Cal. 2012) 855 F.Supp.2d 979, 988-989 and Sillah v. Command Int'l Sec. Servs. (N.D.Cal. 2015) 154 F.Supp.3d 891, 916 [“Claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and for violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 are evaluated under the burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green”]; Faust v. California Portland Ceme
Hearing Date
April 04, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Motion by Defendant KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, for Summary Adjudication of Issues TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s complaint has alleged a variety of different causes of action, including for whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, violation of the FMLA and CLRA, and wrongful termination of public policy. However, all are subject to evaluation in a summary judgment motion to the McDonnell-Douglas burden- shifting test. Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354 [discrimination and retaliation claims subject to McDonnell-Douglas]; Greer v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (N.D.Cal. 2012) 855 F.Supp.2d 979, 988-989 and Sillah v. Command Int'l Sec. Servs. (N.D.Cal. 2015) 154 F.Supp.3d 891, 916 [“Claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and for violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 are evaluated under the burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green”]; Faust v. California Portland Ceme