Judge: Thomas S. Mcconville, Case: 2020-01174276, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling
Defendant M.K. Products, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication is on the court’s calendar today. After ruling on evidentiary matters, the court turns to the substance of the motion
Plaintiff Juan Garcia’s Objections to Evidence are ruled on as follows:
Paquin Declaration
Objections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 are OVERRULED.
Objection16 is SUSTAINED.
The Court declines to rule on Objections 1, 2, 3, 9, 17 and 18 because the evidence objected to was not material to the Court’s decision. [CCP §437c(q)]
Desacola Declaration
Objections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 are OVERRULED.
Defendant M. K. Products, Inc.’s Objections are ruled on as follows:
Objections 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are OVERRULED.
Objections 8, 9 and 11 are SUSTAINED.
The Court declines to rule on Objections 1, 2, 3, 4, 18 and 19 because the evidence objected to was not material to the Court’s decision. [CCP §437c(q)]
The Court declines to consider Defendant’s Separate Statement filed with its Reply, as it is not authorized by any rule or statute. [Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 243, 252]
Defendant’s unopposed Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.
Defendant M. K. Products, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
As the defendant moving for summary judgment on these causes of action (“COAs”), M.K. has the initial burden of persuasion under CCP 437c(p)(2). It must either point to Garcia’s factually devoid discovery responses or show he cannot make out an essential element of his COAs. Once defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to Garcia to offer sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find in his favor. [See, Saelzler v. Advanced Group (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763 and Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826] If defendant never meets its initial burden, Garcia has no obligation to file declarations of his own to defeat the motion by establishing a triable issue of material fact.
The burdens on summary judgment stated above are not altered by and are consistent with the order and allocation of proof [burden shifting] applied in discrimination cases. [Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354] Garcia has the initial burden of offering evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. If met, the burden then shifts to defendant to produce sufficient evidence that the action was taken for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, justifying judgment for them. Finally, if defendant meets this burden, Garcia has the burden to prove intentional discrimination, that defendant’s proffered evidence is a pretext. [ Guz, supra; Hersant v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 997, 1004-1005]
“[W]hether or not a plaintiff has met his or her prima facie burden [under McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra, 411 U.S. 792], and whether or not the defendant has rebutted the plaintiff's prima facie showing, are questions of law for the trial court, not questions of fact for the jury.” [Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School Dist. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 189, 201]
The Court concludes defendant has not shown that plaintiff cannot state a prima facie case for age discrimination on the disparate treatment claim alleged in his Complaint. Establishment of a prima facie case is not onerous. [Board of Trustees v. Keene State College v. Sweeney (1978) 439 U.S. 24, 25] As a matter of law, the burden has been held to be de minimis in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment. [St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) 509 US502, 506; Suter v. Schering Corp. (2nd Cir. 1995) 73 F. 3rd, 13, 16] Repeated questions about retirement can be construed as age-related.
The Complaint does not allege disparate impact discrimination and this was not considered by the Court.
The Court also concludes that defendant has shown that it has met its burden to show that plaintiff was laid off for legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons—namely a reduction in force at the time of a pandemic.
Based upon defendant’s showing of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the layoff, plaintiff was required to show that the lay off was not the real reason his employment was terminated, in other words, pretext. To do this, plaintiff was required to offer specific evidence of pretext or a discriminatory animus. [Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, 94; Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. (1988) 72 Cal.Ap.4th 798, 807. (The employer’s legitimate non-discriminatory business reason for discharge shifted the burden to plaintiff to “produce ‘substantial responsive evidence” that that the employer’s reason for the layoff as untrue. Speculation or conjecture are not sufficient.)
Plaintiff offers no specific evidence that the reasons used by the management committee to choose plaintiff for lay off were not true or were motivated by discriminatory animus. He offers his own opinion of his qualifications and the opinions of some co-workers, but these are not sufficient to meet his burden. Plaintiff is asking the Court to say the issue of whether defendant’s reason for laying him off was right remains an issue of fact. On the record here, it does not. It is not for the courts [or juries] to second-guess as a kind of super-personnel department.” [McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1524]
Based on this ruling, the Court declines to consider defendant’s motion for summary adjudication.
Defendant shall give notice.