employer may rebut presumption in California

2025If the employer discharges this burden, the presumption of discrimination [or retaliation] disappears. 26 The plaintiff must then show that the employer’s proffered . . . reason was actually a pretext for discrimination [or retaliation], and the plaintiff may offer any other evidence of discriminatory [or retaliatory] motive.” (Harris, at pp. 214-215; see Yanowitz, p. 1042.) “‘An employer may meet its initial burden in moving for summary judgment by presenting evidence that one or more elements of a prima facie case are lacking, or the employer acted for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory [and no

2017(Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 355 .) The employer may rebut that presumption by producing admissible evidence raising a genuine issue of fact that, if resolved in the employer’s favor, would establish that the employer’s action “was taken for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” (Id. at pp. 355–356.) If the employer sustains this burden, “the presumption of discrimination disappears,” and the plaintiff must provide evidence that the employer’s proffered reasons were pretextual or offer other evidence of a discriminatory motive.

2025(Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 78 [“the employer may rebut the presumption with evidence of bona fide relief from duty”].) Teresa, to whom Arana reported, declared that Arana “was always provided with all his 30-minute meal . . . breaks,” and more specifically that she observed him taking that meal break when she arrived at work around 8:00 a.m.

2005Appeals Bd. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 92, 98 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 287 ], concluded it was the employer’s burden to show “what ‘. . . contemporaneous nonwork-related event . . . ,’ if any, was the sole cause of applicant’s heart trouble.” Stated another way, the presumption “ ‘does not guarantee [covered] employees that they will recover workers’ compensation benefits for a heart attack which occurs during the course of their employment, but leaves the employer free to rebut the statutory presumption by proving that some contemporaneous nonwork-related event—for example, a victim’s strenuous recreationa

2005Appeals Bd. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 92, 98 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 287 ], concluded it was the employer’s burden to show “what ‘. . . contemporaneous nonwork-related event . . . ,’ if any, was the sole cause of applicant’s heart trouble.” Stated another way, the presumption “ ‘does not guarantee [covered] employees that they will recover workers’ compensation benefits for a heart attack which occurs during the course of their employment, but leaves the employer free to rebut the statutory presumption by proving that some contemporaneous nonwork-related event—for example, a victim’s strenuous recreationa

2005Appeals Bd., supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 776 .) Thus, in Geoghegan v. Retirement Board (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1525, 1528 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 419 ], the employer presented evidence that the employee’s heart attack was caused by the cold and altitude he encountered on a skiing vacation to Vail, Colorado.

2005Appeals Bd., supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 776 .) Thus, in Geoghegan v. Retirement Board (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1525, 1528 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 419 ], the employer presented evidence that the employee’s heart attack was caused by the cold and altitude he encountered on a skiing vacation to Vail, Colorado.

1985(Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 412-413 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 546 P.2d 687 ].) Appellant seeks to follow the particular NLRA precedent which holds that an employer may rebut a presumption that an incumbent union continues to enjoy majority support, and, if union support is lacking, the employer’s refusal to bargain is proper because it actually furthers the cause of employee democracy by *672 overcoming the inertia which helps maintain the status quo.

1985(Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 412-413 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 546 P.2d 687 ].) Appellant seeks to follow the particular NLRA precedent which holds that an employer may rebut a presumption that an incumbent union continues to enjoy majority support, and, if union support is lacking, the employer’s refusal to bargain is proper because it actually furthers the cause of employee democracy by *672 overcoming the inertia which helps maintain the status quo.