Martin Jimeno, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Mobil Oil Corporation, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

Good Law
66 F.3d 1514·95 Daily Journal DAR 12951·150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2472·4 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1646·60 Cal. Comp. Cases 981
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 28, 199593-55768, 93-55850California11,409 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Appellant/Cross-Appellee Martin Jimeno appeals the district court’s judgment as a matter of law in favor of Appellee/Cross-Appellant Mobil Oil Corporation (“Mobil”) on Jimeno’s claim of employment discrimination because of a physical disability, in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal.GoVt Code §§ 12920-12940. The district court found that Jimeno had established a prima facie case of discrimination, but it held that section 301(a) of the federal Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a), preempts Jimeno’s FEHA claim. The district court also ruled that Jimeno’s claim is barred by the exclusivity provisions of California’s workers’ compensation laws, Cal.Labor Code §§ 132a & 3600-3602. Jimeno appeals these rulings and the district court’s decision that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support applicability of the workers’ compensation provisions to Jimeno’s impairment. In addition, Jimeno appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to alter judgment to find Mobil liable as a matter of law and for a new trial on the issue of damages, contending that Mobil has not produced legally sufficient…

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.