California Fair Employment and Housing Law

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff, a former executive, sued defendant former employer. The complaint alleged 12 causes of action, including age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Law and the California Unfair Competition Law. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The employer petitioned for review.

Overview: california labor board

The court concluded that the trial court’s failure to rule expressly on the employer’s evidentiary objection at the summary judgment hearing did not waive those objections on appeal. Because the employer submitted its evidentiary objections in proper form in writing and orally, all of its objections were preserved on appeal. The appellate court properly refused to apply the stray remarks doctrine to exclude alleged discriminatory statements that plaintiff’s supervisors and coworkers made. Strict application of the stray remarks doctrine would result in the categorical exclusion of evidence even if it was relevant. The appellate court properly considered evidence of alleged discriminatory comments made by decisionmakers and coworkers along with all other evidence in the record. Plaintiff’s evidence included statistical evidence of discrimination by the employer, statements that plaintiff was terminated because he was not a “cultural fit,” his demotion to a nonviable position before his termination, and changing rationales for his termination. Moreover, plaintiff’s evidence called into question whether his supervisors’ alleged ageist comments even qualified as stray remarks.

Click here: 토토사이트

Outcome

The judgment of the appellate court was affirmed.