Walker

Walker v. Blue Cross of California

Caution
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 345·4 Cal. App. 4th 985·6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 184·92 Daily Journal DAR 3706·58 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 945
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 1992A052482California4,116 words

Opinion

Opinion

Merrill, J.

Procedural Background

Appellant Carretha Walker’s amended complaint for wrongful termination against her former employer, respondent Blue Cross of California (hereinafter Blue Cross), alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (hereinafter FEHA), Government Code section 12900 et seq. Blue Cross filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion and the opposition were supported by declarations. Following the hearings, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Blue Cross. Walker appeals.

Factual Background

Preliminarily, we consider some general principles pertinent to our review of the grant of summary judgment. A summary judgment motion shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) In order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, the defendant must conclusively negate a necessary element of the plaintiff’s…

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.