|
4165 REVIEW DENIED In an action for employment discrimination, evidence that plaintiff, who was seven months pregnant and about to take a promised paid maternity leave, was terminated despite a record of excellence in her executive responsibilities, that two executives told the company CEO that plaintiff should be retained because she was the only person qualified to run the restructured department, and that the CEO dismissed their advice saying plaintiff had "checked out," coupled with the fact that the CEO subsequently falsely told plaintiff she had never been on anyone's list of employees who should be retained raised a sufficient question of fact about whether defendant's proffered reason that plaintiff was fired because of a reduction in workforce to have resulted in denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment.CitationKELLY v STAMPS.COM (Pregnancy Discrimination) 135 CA4 1088 [See: GovC 12900 etseq; Guz v Bechtel 24 C4 317, T/AT 11/00; Aguilar v ARCO 25 C4 826, P/AT 7/01]
|
|
