Justice

Justice v. Martin Automatic, Inc.

Good Law
34 F. App'x 351
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 1, 2002No. 01-55323; D.C. No. CV-96-00245-RTCalifornia460 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiff Kenneth B. Justice appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant Martin Automatic, Inc.’s (“MAI”) cross-motion for partial summary judgment on Justice’s age discrimination claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). On de novo review, we affirm.

California employs a three part burden shifting analysis for evaluating discrimination cases. Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 , 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352 , 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (Cal.2000) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the employee bears the initial burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination against the employer. If the employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision. Finally, the plaintiff must show that the employer’s asserted reason for termination is a pretext for another motive that is discriminatory.

Although Justice presented a pnma facie case of discrimination, 1 MAI presented *352 a legitimate reason for termination, namely Justice’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.