Facts

Irina Krylova sued Genentech Inc.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that she worked for defendant as a senior research associate from May 2007. Plaintiff alleged that her supervisor commended her for her work until he found out about her age. Her supervisor was shocked to find out that she had adult children, and from then on, he started treating her differently. Plaintiff alleged that he yelled at her and gave her less than stellar assessments. Plaintiff further alleged that her supervisor's motivation for doing so was based mainly on her age. Although meeting all her goals and deadlines, her supervisor continued to find fault in her, leading to her termination in July 2009. Plaintiff then sued defendants, asserting claims for discrimination based on age. In her first amended complaint, she asserted claims for discrimination under the Age Discrimination Employment Act, age discrimination under the California Fair Employment Housing Act, retaliation under ADEA, retaliation under FEHA, failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA and violation of California public policy.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied plaintiff's allegation for age discrimination. Defendant also claimed that her firing was justified because plaintiff had significant performance issues. Plaintiff missed deadlines, failed to respond to correspondence, mislabeled data, and displayed behavioral issues. As such, defendant moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims.

Result

The court determined that Krylova failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding her underlying discrimination claims. Consequently, the court granted Genentech's summary judgment motion on all of Krylova's claims.