Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. Stamps. Com Inc.green2 sentences2015(Id., subd. (p)(2); Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 487 .) Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or defense. ( Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849, 853.) In the employment discrimination context, case law has refined the foregoing burden-shifting analysis to incorporate the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test used to 11 try discrimination claims.5 (See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 (Kelly); Scotch v. Art Institute of C 2014(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849, 853 (Aguilar).) In the employment discrimination context, case law has refined the foregoing burden-shifting analysis to incorporate the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test used to try discrimination claims.3 (See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 (Kelly); Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004- 1005 (Scotch); see also Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 .) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, a plaintiff employee who claims discrimination must first make a prima facie case, consis | 2 | 4 |
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.green2 sentences2015(Id., subd. (p)(2); Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 487 .) Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or defense. ( Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849, 853.) In the employment discrimination context, case law has refined the foregoing burden-shifting analysis to incorporate the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test used to 11 try discrimination claims.5 (See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 (Kelly); Scotch v. Art Institute of C 2015(Id., subd. (p)(2); Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 487 .) Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or defense. ( Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849, 853.) In the employment discrimination context, case law has refined the foregoing burden-shifting analysis to incorporate the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test used to 11 try discrimination claims.5 (See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 (Kelly); Scotch v. Art Institute of C | 2 | 3 |
Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Centergreen2 sentences2021(Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 , citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111 , 121 and Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 150-151, fn. 7 [“The McDonnel Douglas test is typically used in cases where the plaintiff lacks ‘direct’ evidence of the employer’s discriminatory intent.”].) “ ‘Where a plaintiff offers direct evidence of discrimination that is believed by the trier of fact, the defendant can avoid liability only by proving the plaintiff would have been subjected to the same employment decision without reference to the unlawf 2021(Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 , citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111 , 121 and Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 150-151, fn. 7 [“The McDonnel Douglas test is typically used in cases where the plaintiff lacks ‘direct’ evidence of the employer’s discriminatory intent.”].) “ ‘Where a plaintiff offers direct evidence of discrimination that is believed by the trier of fact, the defendant can avoid liability only by proving the plaintiff would have been subjected to the same employment decision without reference to the unlawf | 2 | 2 |
Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internationalgreen2 sentences2015(Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108-1109 (Loggins).) Thus, even without challenging the plaintiff’s prima facie case, an employer moving for summary judgment can satisfy its burden by producing evidence showing a legitimate nonretaliatory reason for the alleged adverse employment action. 2014(Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108-1109 (Loggins).) Thus, even without challenging the plaintiff’s prima facie case, an employer moving for summary judgment can satisfy its burden by producing evidence showing a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the alleged adverse employment action. | 2 | 2 |
Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC.green2 sentences2021Section 12940, subdivision (h) makes it unlawful for an employer “to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.” (Italics added.) To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, “a 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 act 2021Section 12940, subdivision (h) makes it unlawful for an employer “to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.” (Italics added.) To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, “a 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 act | 1 | 3 |
Wallace v. County of Stanislausgreen2 sentences2025This 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 | 1 | 3 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen2 sentences2023(See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 ; Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 ; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005.) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff 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 t 2022(Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 520, fn. 2 ; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 794 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 668, 673 ]; Sillah v. Command International Security Services (N.D. | 1 | 3 |
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green2 sentences2023(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849 .) In the employment discrimination context, case law has refined this burden-shifting analysis to incorporate the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test used to try federal discrimination claims. 2015(Id., subd. (p)(2); Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 487 .) Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or defense. ( Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849, 853.) In the employment discrimination context, case law has refined the foregoing burden-shifting analysis to incorporate the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test used to 11 try discrimination claims.5 (See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 (Kelly); Scotch v. Art Institute of C | 1 | 3 |
Mackey v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.green1 sentence2025(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 | 1 | 1 |
Reid v. Google, Inc.green1 sentence2022(Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 520, fn. 2 ; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 794 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 668, 673 ]; Sillah v. Command International Security Services (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scotch v. Art Institute of California-Orange County, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015(Id., subd. (p)(2); Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 487 .) Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or defense. ( Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849, 853.) In the employment discrimination context, case law has refined the foregoing burden-shifting analysis to incorporate the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test used to 11 try discrimination claims.5 (See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 (Kelly); Scotch v. Art Institute of C 2014(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849, 853 (Aguilar).) In the employment discrimination context, case law has refined the foregoing burden-shifting analysis to incorporate the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test used to try discrimination claims.3 (See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 (Kelly); Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004- 1005 (Scotch); see also Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 .) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, a plaintiff employee who claims discrimination must first make a prima facie case, consis | 4 | 2014–2025 |
Morgan v. Regents of the University of California
green
2 sentences2025(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 2023(See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 ; Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 ; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005.) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff 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 t | 4 | 2021–2025 |
Clark v. Claremont University Center & Graduate School
green
2 sentences2025(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 2023(See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 ; Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 ; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005.) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff 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 t | 2 | 2023–2025 |
Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021(Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 , citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111 , 121 and Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 150-151, fn. 7 [“The McDonnel Douglas test is typically used in cases where the plaintiff lacks ‘direct’ evidence of the employer’s discriminatory intent.”].) “ ‘Where a plaintiff offers direct evidence of discrimination that is believed by the trier of fact, the defendant can avoid liability only by proving the plaintiff would have been subjected to the same employment decision without reference to the unlawf 2021(Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 , citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111 , 121 and Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 150-151, fn. 7 [“The McDonnel Douglas test is typically used in cases where the plaintiff lacks ‘direct’ evidence of the employer’s discriminatory intent.”].) “ ‘Where a plaintiff offers direct evidence of discrimination that is believed by the trier of fact, the defendant can avoid liability only by proving the plaintiff would have been subjected to the same employment decision without reference to the unlawf | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Ronald Y. Chuang and Linda Chuang v. University of California Davis, Board of Trustees and Fitz-Roy Curry
green
2 sentences2021(Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 , citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111 , 121 and Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 150-151, fn. 7 [“The McDonnel Douglas test is typically used in cases where the plaintiff lacks ‘direct’ evidence of the employer’s discriminatory intent.”].) “ ‘Where a plaintiff offers direct evidence of discrimination that is believed by the trier of fact, the defendant can avoid liability only by proving the plaintiff would have been subjected to the same employment decision without reference to the unlawf 2021(Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 , citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111 , 121 and Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 150-151, fn. 7 [“The McDonnel Douglas test is typically used in cases where the plaintiff lacks ‘direct’ evidence of the employer’s discriminatory intent.”].) “ ‘Where a plaintiff offers direct evidence of discrimination that is believed by the trier of fact, the defendant can avoid liability only by proving the plaintiff would have been subjected to the same employment decision without reference to the unlawf | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston
green
2 sentences2021(Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 , citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111 , 121 and Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 150-151, fn. 7 [“The McDonnel Douglas test is typically used in cases where the plaintiff lacks ‘direct’ evidence of the employer’s discriminatory intent.”].) “ ‘Where a plaintiff offers direct evidence of discrimination that is believed by the trier of fact, the defendant can avoid liability only by proving the plaintiff would have been subjected to the same employment decision without reference to the unlawf 2021(Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 1144 , citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111 , 121 and Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 150-151, fn. 7 [“The McDonnel Douglas test is typically used in cases where the plaintiff lacks ‘direct’ evidence of the employer’s discriminatory intent.”].) “ ‘Where a plaintiff offers direct evidence of discrimination that is believed by the trier of fact, the defendant can avoid liability only by proving the plaintiff would have been subjected to the same employment decision without reference to the unlawf | 2 | 2021–2021 |
DeJung v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2025This 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 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
King v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023(See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 ; Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 ; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005.) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff 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 t | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hersant v. Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence2023(See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 ; Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 ; Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 , 1004–1005.) Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff 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 t | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015(Id., subd. (p)(2); Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 487 .) Once the defendant has made such a showing, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or defense. ( Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 849, 853.) In the employment discrimination context, case law has refined the foregoing burden-shifting analysis to incorporate the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test used to 11 try discrimination claims.5 (See Kelly v. Stamps.com Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097 (Kelly); Scotch v. Art Institute of C | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Iverson v. Muroc Unified School District
green
1 sentence2014Standard of review and the three-stage McDonnell Douglas test for employment discrimination claims “On appeal after a motion for summary judgment has been granted, we review the record de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposition papers except that to which objections have been made and sustained.” (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 (Guz).) We make “an independent assessment of the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, applying the same legal standard as the trial court in determining whether there are any genuine issues of material fac | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.