Lockhart

Lockhart v. Delicato Vineyards CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2015C070163California3,858 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On review of summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the losing party opposing summary judgment. (Carlsen v. Koivumaki (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 879, 884, fn. 5.) We do not, however, accept plaintiff’s misstatement of the facts. On May 29, 2007, defendant, a family-owned winery in Manteca, hired plaintiff, a Black female, as Purchasing Manager supervising three subordinates. Defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment in July 2009. In August 2007, plaintiff and an administrator in the accounting department each complained to Human Resources (HR) that the other was unprofessional. The administrator submitted a harassment complaint. HR determined no conduct was based on any protected status, and both women had been unprofessional in dealing with each other. Plaintiff’s performance review for 2007 was favorable but stated her score was “based on expectations given for the short time employed.” Throughout plaintiff’s employment, some of her subordinates, peers, and superiors complained to HR about plaintiff, and plaintiff complained to HR about others in the company. The others complained about difficulty working with…

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.