McDonnell Douglas test in California

2025(Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 353, 357 (Guz); Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 377 [“A plaintiff’s burden is . . . to produce evidence that, taken as a whole, permits a rational inference that intentional discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in the employer’s actions toward the plaintiff.”].) The McDonnell Douglas framework is modified on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication.

2025(See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 [the “McDonnell Douglas test reflects the principle that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is rare, and that such claims must usually be proved circumstantially”]; Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 570, 591 .) On the record before us, we conclude there are triable issues of material fact on the questions of pretext and the motives of all the individuals who contributed to the decision to terminate Piquado’s employment.

2026California courts have long used the three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 44 [(McDonnell Douglas)] . . . .”16 (Arnold, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 424.) At the first stage of the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff bears a burden, which is “ ‘ “not onerous,” ’ ” to establish a prima facie case.

2026California courts have long used the three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 44 [(McDonnell Douglas)] . . . .”16 (Arnold, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 424.) At the first stage of the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff bears a burden, which is “ ‘ “not onerous,” ’ ” to establish a prima facie case.

2025(Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 19 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097-1098 .) “[I]f nondiscriminatory, [the employer’s] true reasons need not necessarily have been wise or correct. [Citations.] While the objective soundness of an employer’s proffered reasons supports their credibility . . ., the ultimate issue is simply whether the employer acted with a motive to discriminate [or retaliate] illegally.” (Guz, at p. 358, italics omitted.) Under the third step of the McDonnell Douglas test, the “[employee] must . . . have the opportunity to attack the employer’s proffered reasons as pretexts for discrim

2025(Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 19 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097-1098 .) “[I]f nondiscriminatory, [the employer’s] true reasons need not necessarily have been wise or correct. [Citations.] While the objective soundness of an employer’s proffered reasons supports their credibility . . ., the ultimate issue is simply whether the employer acted with a motive to discriminate [or retaliate] illegally.” (Guz, at p. 358, italics omitted.) Under the third step of the McDonnell Douglas test, the “[employee] must . . . have the opportunity to attack the employer’s proffered reasons as pretexts for discrim

2024(See Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 520, fn. 2 []; Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354 [] (Guz) [‘[b]ecause of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent federal precedent when applying our own statutes’].) The McDonnell Douglas test ‘reflects the principle that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is rare, and that such claims must usually be proved circumstantially.

2024(See Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 520, fn. 2 []; Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354 [] (Guz) [‘[b]ecause of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent federal precedent when applying our own statutes’].) The McDonnell Douglas test ‘reflects the principle that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is rare, and that such claims must usually be proved circumstantially.

2026(Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 214 (Harris) [discrimination]; Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042 (Yanowitz) [retaliation].) Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the employee bears the initial burden of setting forth a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

2026(Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 214 (Harris) [discrimination]; Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042 (Yanowitz) [retaliation].) Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the employee bears the initial burden of setting forth a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

2026An employer making this showing at summary judgment shifts the onus under the McDonnell Douglas framework to the employee to show the employer used this reason as a pretext for discriminatory action.” (Wills v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 168 .) The burden accordingly shifted to Carreon to produce evidence showing that the reason was pretextual.

2026An employer making this showing at summary judgment shifts the onus under the McDonnell Douglas framework to the employee to show the employer used this reason as a pretext for discriminatory action.” (Wills v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 168 .) The burden accordingly shifted to Carreon to produce evidence showing that the reason was pretextual.

2024(Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981) 450 U.S. 248 , 253–256.) “It is important to note . . . that although the McDonnell Douglas presumption shifts the burden of production to the defendant, ‘[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.’ ” (St.

2024(Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981) 450 U.S. 248 , 253–256.) “It is important to note . . . that although the McDonnell Douglas presumption shifts the burden of production to the defendant, ‘[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.’ ” (St.

2023(Shelley v. Green (9th Cir. 2012) 666 F.3d 599, 607 [“The McDonnell Douglas test is used on summary judgment, not at trial.”]; Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc. (9th Cir. 2002) 299 F.3d 838, 855 , fn. omitted [“it is not normally appropriate to introduce the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to the jury”]; Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School Dist. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 189, 202 [“the construct of the shifting burdens of proof enunciated in McDonnell Douglas is an analytical tool for use by the trial judge in applying the law, not a concept to be 10. understood and applied by the jury in

2023(Shelley v. Green (9th Cir. 2012) 666 F.3d 599, 607 [“The McDonnell Douglas test is used on summary judgment, not at trial.”]; Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc. (9th Cir. 2002) 299 F.3d 838, 855 , fn. omitted [“it is not normally appropriate to introduce the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to the jury”]; Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School Dist. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 189, 202 [“the construct of the shifting burdens of proof enunciated in McDonnell Douglas is an analytical tool for use by the trial judge in applying the law, not a concept to be 10. understood and applied by the jury in

2023(Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1133 , 1144–1145.) The parties agree there is no such evidence in this case, and therefore the McDonnell Douglas test applies. 16 2.

2023(Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1133 , 1144–1145.) The parties agree there is no such evidence in this case, and therefore the McDonnell Douglas test applies. 16 2.

2023Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) “[T]o make out a prima facie case of age discrimination under the FEHA, a plaintiff must present evidence that the plaintiff (1) is over the age of 40; (2) suffered an adverse employment action; (3) was performing satisfactorily at the time of the adverse action; and (4) suffered the adverse action under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” (Sandell v. Taylor- Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 321 .) “Because of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent fede

2023Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) “[T]o make out a prima facie case of age discrimination under the FEHA, a plaintiff must present evidence that the plaintiff (1) is over the age of 40; (2) suffered an adverse employment action; (3) was performing satisfactorily at the time of the adverse action; and (4) suffered the adverse action under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” (Sandell v. Taylor- Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 321 .) “Because of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent fede

2026(Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 214 (Harris) [discrimination]; Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042 (Yanowitz) [retaliation].) Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the employee bears the initial burden of setting forth a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

2026(Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 214 (Harris) [discrimination]; Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042 (Yanowitz) [retaliation].) Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the employee bears the initial burden of setting forth a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

2022Code, § 12940, subd. (h)].) “In the first stage [of the McDonnell Douglas framework], the ‘plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a “protected activity,” (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer’s action.’ ” (Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1109 (Loggins); see Patten, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1384.) “If the employee successfully establishes these elements and thereby shows a prima facie case exists, the burden shifts to the employer to prov

2022Code, § 12940, subd. (h)].) “In the first stage [of the McDonnell Douglas framework], the ‘plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a “protected activity,” (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer’s action.’ ” (Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1109 (Loggins); see Patten, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at p. 1384.) “If the employee successfully establishes these elements and thereby shows a prima facie case exists, the burden shifts to the employer to prov

2022Even assuming the timing of the Level 4 Corrective Action was relevant, however, “temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to raise a triable issue as to pretext once the employer has offered evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination.” (Arteaga, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 353 .) The Arteaga court continued, “This is not to say that temporal proximity is never relevant in the final step of the McDonnell Douglas test.

2022Even assuming the timing of the Level 4 Corrective Action was relevant, however, “temporal proximity alone is not sufficient to raise a triable issue as to pretext once the employer has offered evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination.” (Arteaga, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 353 .) The Arteaga court continued, “This is not to say that temporal proximity is never relevant in the final step of the McDonnell Douglas test.

2026“California’s summary judgment law places the initial 18 burden on a moving party defendant to either negate an element of the plaintiff’s claim or establish a complete defense to the claim. [Citation.] The burdens and order of proof therefore shift under the McDonnell Douglas test when an employer defendant seeks summary judgment. [Citation.] An employer defendant may meet its initial burden on summary judgment, and require the employee plaintiff to present evidence establishing a triable issue of material fact, by presenting evidence that either negates an element of the employee’s prima fac

2026“California’s summary judgment law places the initial 18 burden on a moving party defendant to either negate an element of the plaintiff’s claim or establish a complete defense to the claim. [Citation.] The burdens and order of proof therefore shift under the McDonnell Douglas test when an employer defendant seeks summary judgment. [Citation.] An employer defendant may meet its initial burden on summary judgment, and require the employee plaintiff to present evidence establishing a triable issue of material fact, by presenting evidence that either negates an element of the employee’s prima fac

2025(See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088 , 1097–1098; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005 (Scotch).) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff at trial bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; if the plaintiff is successful, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and, if the employer produces evidence of a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show the employer’s reason was a pretext to mask an illegal motive.3 (Gu

2025(See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088 , 1097–1098; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005 (Scotch).) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff at trial bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; if the plaintiff is successful, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and, if the employer produces evidence of a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show the employer’s reason was a pretext to mask an illegal motive.3 (Gu

2025(Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 997, 1005 .) Courts apply a modified McDonnell Douglas framework when an employer defendant moves for summary judgment or summary adjudication.

2023Thus, by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.’ ” (Zamora, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 31.) “Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. 41 [Citation.] To meet this burden, the plaintiff must, at a minimum, show the employer took actions from which, if unexplained, it can be inferred that it is more likely than not that such actions were based on a prohibited discrimin

2000Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) 509 U.S. 502, 506 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 ( Hicks ).) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, a plaintiff employee claiming discrimination has the initial burden to establish "by a preponderance of the evidence, a `prima facie' case of ... discrimination." ( Hicks, supra, 509 U.S. at p. 506 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 ; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981) 450 U.S. 248, 252-253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 ( Burdine ).) When, as here, the alleged age discrimination resulting in the employee's discharge occurs during an employer's restructuring o

2000Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) 509 U.S. 502, 506 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 ( Hicks ).) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, a plaintiff employee claiming discrimination has the initial burden to establish "by a preponderance of the evidence, a `prima facie' case of ... discrimination." ( Hicks, supra, 509 U.S. at p. 506 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 ; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981) 450 U.S. 248, 252-253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 ( Burdine ).) When, as here, the alleged age discrimination resulting in the employee's discharge occurs during an employer's restructuring o

2018(Guz, at p. 355; Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 149 .) If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, creating a “presumption of discrimination,” the burden shifts to the employer to provide “ ‘a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action.’ ” ( Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 860-861.) Under the third step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, “the ‘plaintiff must [then] . . . have the opportunity to attack the employer’s proffered reasons as pretexts for discrimination, or to offer any other evidence of discriminatory motive.’ ” (S

2018(Guz, at p. 355; Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 149 .) If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, creating a “presumption of discrimination,” the burden shifts to the employer to provide “ ‘a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action.’ ” ( Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 860-861.) Under the third step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, “the ‘plaintiff must [then] . . . have the opportunity to attack the employer’s proffered reasons as pretexts for discrimination, or to offer any other evidence of discriminatory motive.’ ” (S

2025Thus, 7 “ ‘Disparate treatment’ is intentional discrimination on prohibited grounds.” (DeJung, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 549, fn. 10 .) 13 by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.’ ” (Zamora, at p. 31.) “Under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a ‘ “prima facie case.” ’ ” (Zamora, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 31.) (The elements of a prima facie disparate treatment di

2025Thus, 7 “ ‘Disparate treatment’ is intentional discrimination on prohibited grounds.” (DeJung, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 549, fn. 10 .) 13 by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.’ ” (Zamora, at p. 31.) “Under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a ‘ “prima facie case.” ’ ” (Zamora, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 31.) (The elements of a prima facie disparate treatment di

2026“California’s summary judgment law places the initial 18 burden on a moving party defendant to either negate an element of the plaintiff’s claim or establish a complete defense to the claim. [Citation.] The burdens and order of proof therefore shift under the McDonnell Douglas test when an employer defendant seeks summary judgment. [Citation.] An employer defendant may meet its initial burden on summary judgment, and require the employee plaintiff to present evidence establishing a triable issue of material fact, by presenting evidence that either negates an element of the employee’s prima fac

2026“California’s summary judgment law places the initial 18 burden on a moving party defendant to either negate an element of the plaintiff’s claim or establish a complete defense to the claim. [Citation.] The burdens and order of proof therefore shift under the McDonnell Douglas test when an employer defendant seeks summary judgment. [Citation.] An employer defendant may meet its initial burden on summary judgment, and require the employee plaintiff to present evidence establishing a triable issue of material fact, by presenting evidence that either negates an element of the employee’s prima fac

2023As an analytical tool for assessing a discrimination claim, the McDonnell Douglas framework “does not affect the procedural rule . . . that imposes on a defendant the initial burden when that party seeks summary [judgment].” (Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 926 .) As a result, a motion for summary judgment brought by a defendant 14 employer “ ‘ “slightly modifies the order of [the McDonnell Douglas] showings.” ’ [Citation.] Consequently, [the employer has] the initial burden to either (1) negate an essential element of [the plaintiff’s] prima facie case [citation] or

2023As an analytical tool for assessing a discrimination claim, the McDonnell Douglas framework “does not affect the procedural rule . . . that imposes on a defendant the initial burden when that party seeks summary [judgment].” (Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 926 .) As a result, a motion for summary judgment brought by a defendant 14 employer “ ‘ “slightly modifies the order of [the McDonnell Douglas] showings.” ’ [Citation.] Consequently, [the employer has] the initial burden to either (1) negate an essential element of [the plaintiff’s] prima facie case [citation] or

2023Thus, by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.” [Citation.] “‘Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. [Citation.] To meet this burden, the plaintiff must, at a minimum, show the employer took actions from which, if unexplained, it can be inferred that it is more likely than not that such actions were based on a prohibited discriminatory criterion. [Citation.] A pri

2023Thus, by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.” [Citation.] “‘Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. [Citation.] To meet this burden, the plaintiff must, at a minimum, show the employer took actions from which, if unexplained, it can be inferred that it is more likely than not that such actions were based on a prohibited discriminatory criterion. [Citation.] A pri

2025(See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088 , 1097–1098; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005 (Scotch).) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff at trial bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; if the plaintiff is successful, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and, if the employer produces evidence of a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show the employer’s reason was a pretext to mask an illegal motive.3 (Gu

2025(See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088 , 1097–1098; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005 (Scotch).) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff at trial bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; if the plaintiff is successful, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and, if the employer produces evidence of a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show the employer’s reason was a pretext to mask an illegal motive.3 (Gu

2026Code, § 12900 et seq.], the McDonnell Douglas[6] burden shifting analysis applies to retaliation claims under CFRA.” (Moore, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 248 .) “ ‘At trial, the McDonnell Douglas test places on the plaintiff the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

2026Code, § 12900 et seq.], the McDonnell Douglas[6] burden shifting analysis applies to retaliation claims under CFRA.” (Moore, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 248 .) “ ‘At trial, the McDonnell Douglas test places on the plaintiff the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

2021Thus, by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.” (Guz, at p. 354.)4 4Paula maintains the McDonnell-Douglas test is unnecessary in the present case because there is direct evidence she was fired because of her association with her disabled sister. “ ‘[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.’ ” (Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1144 , quoting Tran

2021Thus, by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.” (Guz, at p. 354.)4 4Paula maintains the McDonnell-Douglas test is unnecessary in the present case because there is direct evidence she was fired because of her association with her disabled sister. “ ‘[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.’ ” (Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1144 , quoting Tran

2025(See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088 , 1097–1098; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005 (Scotch).) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff at trial bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; if the plaintiff is successful, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and, if the employer produces evidence of a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show the employer’s reason was a pretext to mask an illegal motive.3 (Gu

2025(See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088 , 1097–1098; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005 (Scotch).) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff at trial bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; if the plaintiff is successful, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and, if the employer produces evidence of a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show the employer’s reason was a pretext to mask an illegal motive.3 (Gu

2023While the McDonnell Douglas test provides a method of analyzing employment discrimination questions in the summary judgment context, “[t]he central issue is and should remain whether the evidence as a whole supports a reasoned inference that the challenged action was the product of discriminatory or retaliatory animus.” (Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 715 ; see Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 361 , fn. omitted [“the great weight of federal and California authority holds that an employer is entitled to summary judgment if, considering the employer’s innocent explanati

2023While the McDonnell Douglas test provides a method of analyzing employment discrimination questions in the summary judgment context, “[t]he central issue is and should remain whether the evidence as a whole supports a reasoned inference that the challenged action was the product of discriminatory or retaliatory animus.” (Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 715 ; see Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 361 , fn. omitted [“the great weight of federal and California authority holds that an employer is entitled to summary judgment if, considering the employer’s innocent explanati

2025This is because “California has also adopted the rule that ‘ “the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.” ’ ” (DeJung, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 550 ; see also Zamora, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 34 [“Courts have held that the three-stage McDonnell Douglas framework does not apply when the employee presents direct evidence of discrimination”]; Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109, 123 (Wallace) [“The three-stage framework . . . do[es] not apply in discrimination cases where . . . the plaintiff presents dir

2025This is because “California has also adopted the rule that ‘ “the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.” ’ ” (DeJung, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 550 ; see also Zamora, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 34 [“Courts have held that the three-stage McDonnell Douglas framework does not apply when the employee presents direct evidence of discrimination”]; Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109, 123 (Wallace) [“The three-stage framework . . . do[es] not apply in discrimination cases where . . . the plaintiff presents dir

2026(Lawson, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 712 .) 45 The McDonnell Douglas test does not apply where a plaintiff produces direct evidence of discrimination.

2026(Lawson, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 712 .) 45 The McDonnell Douglas test does not apply where a plaintiff produces direct evidence of discrimination.