Legal Opinion

Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 14, 2000No. A078223PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

McGUINESS, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent City of Emeryville (the City) following a court trial on a complaint alleging employment discrimination on the basis of age under Government Code section 12900 et seq. Appellant Frances Muzquiz contends the trial court committed prejudicial error, both by adopting an erroneous burden of proof and by considering inadmissible evidence at trial. We conclude it is the parties themselves who have confused the standards of proof applicable to review of a motion for summary judgment on an employment discrimination claim…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2007
  2. Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. Wynn v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2002
  4. Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. Schmir v. SchmirCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API