Takeaway: This is, on the whole, a helpful case for employers. It is a reminder that even with the FEHA's strong protections for employees, plaintiffs must still provide sufficient evidentiary support to meet their burden to show discriminatory motive. Here, a highly qualified plaintiff who was significantly older than selected candidates was not able to meet her burden.
At the same time, to avoid providing support for a potential claim, employers should be mindful that employees' performance reviews capture accurately how their performance is actually viewed.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted summary judgment on three of four claims of age discrimination brought by a former employee. While the individuals selected for four positions were an average of 30 years younger, the court held that the plaintiff failed to meet her evidentiary burden to demonstrate discriminatory motive by her former employer.
The plaintiff, a former part-time assignment editor at the defendant's television station, brought her age discrimination claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Her primary set of claims stemmed from the defendant's decisions not to hire her four separate times for internal positions, opting in each instance to select a significantly younger person for the role.
In order to demonstrate age discrimination under the FEHA, a plaintiff must show:
The Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, Gayton McKenzie, has rejected claims that he has withdrawn or rescinded the gazetted renaming of Graaff-Reinet to Robert Sobukwe Town, along with other geo...