Cornell

Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club

Good Law
18 Cal. App. 5th 908·227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 21, 2017A147516California15,998 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Humes, J.

*918 Plaintiff Ketryn Cornell is a severely obese woman who was fired from the Berkeley Tennis Club after having worked there for over 15 years. She brought eight claims against the Club: three under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq. ), for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability (the discrimination/failure to accommodate claim), disability harassment, and retaliation; three *294 for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, based on her three FEHA claims; one for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and one for defamation. She appeals from a final judgment entered after the trial court granted the Club's motion for summary adjudication of all eight claims. 1

We affirm in part and reverse in part. Under the law governing motions for summary adjudication, the Club had the initial burden to produce evidence that Cornell cannot establish at least one element of each claim. The Club failed to sustain this burden on the claims requiring Cornell to show that her obesity has a physiological cause. We therefore conclude that the trial court improperly granted summary adjudication of the FEHA…

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.