Popal vs. Sajjadian

Plaintiff raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether Butrica or Antanaitis played any role in Blackburn’s decision to eliminate Plaintiff’s position. (DMF No. 46 and 53; Plaintiff’s Compendium of Exhibits, Part 2 of 5, Exhibit O, 187:10-23 and 189:25-191:18.) Accordingly, the motion for summary adjudication is denied.

Issue 7: Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of California Labor Code section 232.5 fails as a matter of law because Defendants can establish that they eliminated Plaintiff’s position for legitimate, non-retaliatory, and non-pretextual reasons.

Defendants met their initial burden to show Defendants terminated Plaintiff for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. (DMF No. 42, 44, 47, 48, and 54.) Plaintiff met her shifted burden to show Defendants’ motive was pretextual and also raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether Butrica and Antanaitis played any role in Blackburn’s decision to eliminate Plaintiff’s position. (DMF No. 46 and 54; Plaintiff’s Compendium of Exhibits, Part 2 of 5, Exhibit O, 187:10-23 and 189:25-191:18; Plaintiff’s Compendium of Evidence, Part 4 of 5, Exhibit R, 265:20-266:23.) Accordingly, the motion for summary adjudication is denied.

Issue 8: Plaintiff’s derivative Fifth Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff’s underlying claims under the FEHA and California Labor Code claims (Plaintiff’s First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action) fail as a matter of law.

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants did not show Plaintiff’s underlying claims under FEHA and the Labor Code fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, the motion for summary adjudication on this issue is denied.

Summary judgment For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.

Plaintiff shall give notice.

11 Popal vs.

1. Motion for Reconsideration Sajjadian 2. Motion to Vacate

2024-01384261 Withdrawn