Plaintiff, a former executive, sued defendant former employer. The complaint alleged 12 causes of action, including age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Law and the California Unfair Competition Law. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The employer petitioned for review.
The court concluded that the trial court’s failure to rule expressly on the employer’s evidentiary objection at the summary judgment hearing did not waive those objections on appeal. Because the employer submitted its evidentiary objections in proper form in writing and orally, all of its objections were preserved on appeal. The appellate court properly refused to apply the stray remarks doctrine to exclude alleged discriminatory statements that the plaintiff’s supervisors and coworkers made. Visit the san diego employment law lawyers for the employment law cases.
Strict application of the stray remarks doctrine would result in the categorical exclusion of evidence even if it was relevant. The appellate court properly considered evidence of alleged discriminatory comments made by decisionmakers and coworkers along with all other evidence in the record. Plaintiff’s evidence included statistical evidence of discrimination by the employer, statements that plaintiff was terminated because he was not a “cultural fit,” his demotion to a nonviable position before his termination, and changing rationales for his termination. Moreover, plaintiff’s evidence called into question whether his supervisors’ alleged ageist comments even qualified as stray remarks.
The judgment of the appellate court was affirmed.
Appellant business owner sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which denied his petition for writ of mandate challenging an administrative decision by respondent, the Board for Geologists and Geophysicists of the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, that he had been practicing geophysics for others in California without a license in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7872, subd. (a).
The business owner entered into a contract with a landowner to provide a computer profile of subsurface conditions to locate groundwater. The business owner was not a licensed geophysicist, had never studied geophysics, and was not working under a licensed geophysicist. Two expert witnesses testified, on the basis of the contract and the business owner’s advertising, that the business owner was offering geophysical services to the public. The Board cited the business owner under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7832, for practicing or offering to practice geophysics for others without a license and ordered him to pay a fine. The court held that the substantial evidence test was applicable under Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, because the business owner had no fundamental vested right to continue operating his business without the required license. The contract and the testimony constituted substantial evidence that the business owner was practicing geophysics, as defined in Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7802.1, without a license in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7872, subd. (a). The Board’s citation provided adequate notice, although it used the word “violation,” which was not found in the statutes.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.