plaintiff may raise presumption in California

2021(Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 111 .) “The elements of a disparate treatment disability discrimination claim are that the plaintiff (1) suffered from a disability or was regarded as suffering from a disability, (2) could perform the essential duties of a job with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability.” (Glynn, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 53, fn. 1, citing Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310 (Sandell).) “A 21 satisfactory showing to this effect gives rise to

2021(Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 111 .) “The elements of a disparate treatment disability discrimination claim are that the plaintiff (1) suffered from a disability or was regarded as suffering from a disability, (2) could perform the essential duties of a job with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability.” (Glynn, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 53, fn. 1, citing Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310 (Sandell).) “A 21 satisfactory showing to this effect gives rise to

2021(Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 111 .) “The elements of a disparate treatment disability discrimination claim are that the plaintiff (1) suffered from a disability or was regarded as suffering from a disability, (2) could perform the essential duties of a job with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability.” (Glynn, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 53, fn. 1, citing Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310 (Sandell).) “A 21 satisfactory showing to this effect gives rise to

2021(Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 111 .) “The elements of a disparate treatment disability discrimination claim are that the plaintiff (1) suffered from a disability or was regarded as suffering from a disability, (2) could perform the essential duties of a job with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) was subjected to an adverse employment action because of the disability or perceived disability.” (Glynn, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 53, fn. 1, citing Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 310 (Sandell).) “A 21 satisfactory showing to this effect gives rise to

2014Thus, 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, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354.) At trial, under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a “prima facie case,” the components of which vary depending upon the nature of the claim, but typically require evidence that “ ‘(1) [the plaintiff] was a member of a protected class, (2) [the plaintiff] was qualified for the posi

2004Both parties seem to accept that defendant’s claim of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharging plaintiff should be analyzed within the three-step analytical framework adopted by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802-804 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 668 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 ] (McDonnell Douglas). 11 Under that framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a “prima facie case,” the components of which vary with the nature of the claim, but typically require evidence that “(1) [the plaintiff] was a member of a prote

2016Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) "In cases alleging employment discrimination, we analyze the trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment using a three-step process that is based on the burden-shifting test that was established by the United States Supreme Court for trials of employment discrimination claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 [McDonnell Douglas]." (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830 , 6 860 (Serri).) "[U]nder the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presentin

2016Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) "In cases alleging employment discrimination, we analyze the trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment using a three-step process that is based on the burden-shifting test that was established by the United States Supreme Court for trials of employment discrimination claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 [McDonnell Douglas]." (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830 , 6 860 (Serri).) "[U]nder the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presentin

2016(See, e.g., Guz [v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000)] 24 Cal.4th [317,] 354-355 [(Guz)]; Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 111 (Reeves).) . . . [¶] . . . [U]nder the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a ‘prima facie case,’ the components of which vary depending upon the nature of the claim . . . . ( Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 111-112.) ‘A satisfactory showing to this effect gives rise to a presumption of discrimination which, if unanswered by the employer, is mandatory—it requires

2016(See, e.g., Guz [v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000)] 24 Cal.4th [317,] 354-355 [(Guz)]; Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 111 (Reeves).) . . . [¶] . . . [U]nder the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a ‘prima facie case,’ the components of which vary depending upon the nature of the claim . . . . ( Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 111-112.) ‘A satisfactory showing to this effect gives rise to a presumption of discrimination which, if unanswered by the employer, is mandatory—it requires

2016Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) "In cases alleging employment discrimination, we analyze the trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment using a three-step process that is based on the burden-shifting test that was established by the United States Supreme Court for trials of employment discrimination claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 [McDonnell Douglas]." (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830 , 6 860 (Serri).) "[U]nder the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presentin

2004Both parties seem to accept that defendant’s claim of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharging plaintiff should be analyzed within the three-step analytical framework adopted by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802-804 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 668 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 ] (McDonnell Douglas). 11 Under that framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a “prima facie case,” the components of which vary with the nature of the claim, but typically require evidence that “(1) [the plaintiff] was a member of a prote

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

2016Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) "In cases alleging employment discrimination, we analyze the trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment using a three-step process that is based on the burden-shifting test that was established by the United States Supreme Court for trials of employment discrimination claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 [McDonnell Douglas]." (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830 , 6 860 (Serri).) "[U]nder the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presentin

2016Union, Local 1000 (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 820, 834 (Batarse).) "It is not sufficient for an employee to make a bare prima facie showing or to simply deny the credibility of the employer's witnesses or to speculate as to discriminatory motive. [Citations.] Rather it is incumbent upon the employee to produce 'substantial responsive evidence' demonstrating the existence of a material triable controversy as to pretext or discriminatory animus on the part of the employer." (Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 862 .) "[S]ummary judgment for the employer may thus be appropriate where, given the streng

2015(Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 860 (Serri); Morgan, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 68 .) “‘[Through] successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the [so-called McDonnell Douglas] test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.’” (Wills v. Superior Court (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 159 (Wills).) “At trial, under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a ‘prima facie case,’ the components of which var

2015(Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954, 965 (Swanson); Wills, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 160 .) If the employer does so, “the presumption of discrimination created by the prima facie case ‘“simply drops out of the picture”’ [citations] and the burden shifts back to the employee to prove intentional discrimination.” (Morgan, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 68 .) In the final stage, the plaintiff employee must prove discrimination by presenting evidence to show the employer’s proffered reasons are a pretext for discrimination or the employer otherwise acted with a disc

2015(Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954, 965 (Swanson); Wills, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 160 .) If the employer does so, “the presumption of discrimination created by the prima facie case ‘“simply drops out of the picture”’ [citations] and the burden shifts back to the employee to prove intentional discrimination.” (Morgan, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 68 .) In the final stage, the plaintiff employee must prove discrimination by presenting evidence to show the employer’s proffered reasons are a pretext for discrimination or the employer otherwise acted with a disc

2014In a summary judgment motion in “an employment discrimination case, the employer, as the moving party, has the initial burden to present admissible evidence showing either that one or more elements of plaintiff’s prima facie case is lacking or that the adverse employment action was based upon legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors.” (Hicks v. KNTV Television, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 994, 1003 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 240 ], citing Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 357.) Defendants here presented evidence that Serri was terminated for legitimate reasons that were “unrelated to unlawful discrimination.” (

2014In a summary judgment motion in “an employment discrimination case, the employer, as the moving party, has the initial burden to present admissible evidence showing either that one or more elements of plaintiff’s prima facie case is lacking or that the adverse employment action was based upon legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors.” (Hicks v. KNTV Television, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 994, 1003 [ 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 240 ], citing Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 357.) Defendants here presented evidence that Serri was terminated for legitimate reasons that were “unrelated to unlawful discrimination.” (