 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lyon v. Roadway Express3/6/2003
Plaintiff appeals from an award of summary judgment on plaintiff's employment discrimination claims. We affirm, concluding that plaintiff's assertions of discrimination are far too speculative to survive summary judgment.
Statement of Facts
In 1997, plaintiff applied for employment with defendant as a truck driver. As part of the application process, plaintiff's physical capability was evaluated by an independent contractor named INRTEK, who initially reported that plaintiff had failed to meet the applicable standards. Based on that report, defendant did not hire plaintiff. This prompted plaintiff to file an employment discrimination claim, arguing that defendant had refused to hire him because it perceived him to be disabled due to a prior spinal injury.
In 1998, while plaintiff's discrimination claim was pending, INRTEK informed defendant that it had erred in evaluating plaintiff and plaintiff had actually met the applicable standards. Plaintiff was informed of this error and defendant offered him a job under the same terms as before. However, plaintiff rejected the offer, demanding that the usual probationary period be waived. Defendant informed plaintiff that it could not waive the probationary period because it was a union requirement, but told plaintiff that he could always reapply in the future.
In 1999, plaintiff reapplied for a truck driver position with defendant. As part of the application process, plaintiff had a medical examination and filled out a medical history form. On the medical history form, plaintiff indicated that he had suffered prior " ead or spinal injuries," which he described as "neck injury - had C6-7 disc [surgery]." Around the same time, plaintiff signed a conditional job offer where he similarly indicated that he had suffered prior on- the-job injuries to his "neck." The conditional job offer provided that the offer could be rescinded for " alse or misleading statements."
A few days after the medical examination and the conditional job offer, defendant received a report regarding plaintiff's workers' compensation history. The workers' compensation report indicated that plaintiff had filed a workers' compensation claim in 1993 for injuries to multiple body parts, including his neck and back. Defendant subsequently terminated plaintiff's conditional employment "for failure to meet our employment standards."
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint, alleging that defendant had discriminated against him based on its perception that he was disabled and retaliated against him for pursuing the 1997 discrimination claim. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiff was terminated solely because he made false or misleading statements during the application process by failing to reveal his back injury. The trial court ultimately granted defendant summary judgment, resulting in this appeal.
Discussion
1. Summary Judgment
Summary judgment rulings are reviewed de novo on appeal. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 860 (Aguilar).) Summary judgment must be granted when the evidence shows that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Aguilar, supra, at p. 843.) In making this determination, courts must view the evidence and the reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Aguilar, supra, at p. 843.)
A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of producing evidence showing that one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action cannot be
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|