Begnal

Begnal v. Canfield & Associates, Inc.

Bad Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 89·2000 Daily Journal DAR 1575·78 Cal. App. 4th 66·92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 611·81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1753
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 9, 2000A080976, A081325, A081539, A084814, A084822, A082259California4,176 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stein, J.

Camille Bengal, Connie Ebey, Mary Ann Suerth and Jeannie McKenzie sued their former employer, Canfield & Associates, Inc., alleging their employment was terminated based upon their age in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). The jury found that Canfield had terminated all four plaintiffs based upon their age, but the court granted Canfield’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to McKenzie.

Canfield appeals the judgment in favor of Begnal, Ebey and Suerth. McKenzie appeals the judgment in Canfield’s favor, based upon the order granting Canfield’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We shall affirm the judgment with respect to Begnal, Ebey, and Suerth. We shall also reverse the judgment in Canfield’s favor with respect to McKenzie, and remand with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

Facts

1. Canfield Takes Over Collection and Registration Functions at Valley Memorial Hospital.

Prior to October 1995, Camille Bengal, Connie Ebey, and Mary Ann Suerth had been employed by Valley Memorial Hospital (Hospital) in the accounting department. Their…

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.