Muzquiz

Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 284·2000 Daily Journal DAR 3873·79 Cal. App. 4th 1106·94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 579·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2899
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 14, 2000A078223California7,924 words

Opinion

Opinion

McGUINESS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent City of Emeryville (the City) following a court trial on a complaint alleging employment discrimination on the basis of age under Government Code section 12900 et seq. Appellant Frances Muzquiz contends the trial court committed prejudicial error, both by adopting an erroneous burden of proof and by considering inadmissible evidence at trial. We conclude it is the parties themselves who have confused the standards of proof applicable to review of a motion for summary judgment on an employment discrimination claim with those more properly applicable in the context of a bench trial on the same claim. Because the trial court itself did not err, and the judgment was amply supported by substantial evidence in the record, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant Muzquiz began working for respondent City in 1981, when she was 62 years of age. After working at the City redevelopment agency, appellant became the secretary to the city manager in 1984. Her duties consisted of the usual duties required of a secretary: typing, dictation, photocopying, and handling the city manager’s mail, telephone calls and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.