(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendants have failed to meet their initial burden of presenting admissible evidence to show that either one or more elements of Plaintiffs first cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.
As Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint ( FAC ) alleges, and the facts in this case support, Defendants engaged in consistent and malicious workplace harassment of Plaintiff and made defamatory statements against Plaintiff. As a result of this willful and malicious illegal treatment, Plaintiff suffered injury to his emotional well being and his professional reputation. Defendants argue that the treatment endured by Plaintiff and his resulting injuries are not sufficient to trigger protection under applicable anti-discrimination statutes such as the Fair Employment and Housing Act and anti-defamation statutes. Plaintiff disagrees with this contention and will present admissible evidence at trial to support Plaintiff’s positions. Therefore, disputed material facts exist in this case which preclude Defendants from succeeding on their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Defendants’ motion is based on their claim that Plaintiff’s first cause of action lacks merit because the California Constitution does not protect against sexual orientation discrimination and because Defendants allegedly did not know Plaintiff is half Jewish and therefore could not intentionally discriminate against him based on creed. As discussed below, these positions are inaccurate and demonstrably in dispute. Accordingly, the summary judgment motion should be denied. (See Part 2 of 7.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.