Begnal v. Canfield & Associates, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEIN, J.
Camille Bengal, Connie Ebey, Mary Ann Suerth and Jeannie McKenzie sued their former employer, Canfield & Associates, Inc., alleging their employment was terminated based upon their age in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). The jury found that Canfield had terminated all four plaintiffs based upon their age, but the court granted Canfield’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to McKenzie.
Canfield appeals the judgment in favor of Begnal, Ebey and Suerth. 1 McKenzie appeals the judgment in Canfield’s…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. AikensSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Frank L. LOEB, Plaintiff, v. TEXTRON, INC., Et Al., DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1979
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- McRae v. Department of Corrections & RehabilitationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- DeJung v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Jacobson v. SchwarzeneggerDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2004
- Sneddon v. ABF Freight SystemsDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2007
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.