This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

CONFIDENTIAL

Mar. 16, 2000

Employment Law
Age Discrimination
Overtime Compensation

Confidential

Bench Decision –  $0

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Douglas Inman

Mario E. Diaz


Defendant

Victoria E. Moss

George S. Burns


Facts

The plaintiff, a 56-year-old factory supervisor, was employed by defendants, a plastics packing company, from
1969 until his termination in July 1997.
The plaintiff was terminated because he had packaged and shipped two boxes of defective baskets, despite
warnings. Furthermore, since the company was, at the time, experiencing a severe general work slowdown,
which led to its closure a few months later, it could not overlook such examples of poor employee performance.
The defendant agreed to classify the termination as a "layoff" to allow plaintiff to obtain unemployment
benefits. The plaintiff claimed that he was terminated because of his age.
The plaintiff also contended that on two occasions, his supervisor criticized his slow work performance by
telling plaintiff that he was too old. The plaintiff also claimed that his job was filled by a younger worker.
The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed many of his claims following discovery.
The defendants then sought summary judgment on the remaining claims for violation of public policy and
emotional distress.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed in excess of $100,000 from his lost earning and emotional distress.

Result

The court found that defendants presented sufficient evidence of a non-discriminatory basis for terminating plaintiff and that the defense evidence was not rebutted by credible and substantial evidence from the plaintiff. The court found that plaintiffÆs declaration testimony was contradicted in several material respects by his verified DFEH complaint, his responses to interrogatories and his deposition. The court also found that the cause of action for emotional distress had no merit under the controlling authorities and due to the contradictions which exist between the plaintiffÆs deposition and declaration testimony.

Other Information

The order granting summary judgment was entered 11 months after the case was filed.


#126701

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390