Romero v. Phoenix Home Orange County, Inc.

The Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED. Plaintiff is to give notice.
1st C/A – Issue 1
The 1st cause of action under the California Equal Pay Act, is subject to a McDonnel-Douglas burden shifting analysis. (See CACI No. 2740-42, at Sources and Authorities; Green v. Par Pools, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 620, 626; Hall v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 318, 323–324, Lab. Code §1197.5(a)(1)(D) as effective in 1/2016, and onwards.)
The motion as to this cause of action is DENIED.
Defendant argues that the cause of action fails, because Plaintiff did not perform substantially similar work as other directors. The test is “substantially similar work” “when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility” (Lab Code §1197.5(a)). This description suggests a pretty factual inquiry to begin with. The Motion itself does not present enough information about the scope of the job, to support adjudicating the issue (See Material Facts 1........