Constance London v. Sears, Roebuck & Company

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Constance London (London) appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of her claims of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, age discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Sears) as to London’s age discrimination claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal Gov’t Code § § 12900-12996. FEHA claims are evaluated under the three-part burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School Dist., 41 Cal.App.4th 189 , 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 448, 452-53 (1995). London failed to state a prima facie claim because she did not demonstrate that she was performing her job adequately. To the contrary, London admitted to violating the employee discount card policy, and she was written up…