|
4573 REVIEW GRANTED In an action for age discrimination, plaintiff's evidence that he was subjected to ageist comments by co-workers, was removed from a directorial position and given a less prestigious position with no budget or staff while his original position was filled by a much younger person, and was fired from that position soon after it was created for him was sufficient to raise a question of fact about whether defendant's stated reason for terminating plaintiff was pretextual, or defendant acted out of discriminatory animus; defendant did not meet its burden of rebutting this evidence by arguing that plaintiff's evidence was insufficient, but submitting no evidence of its own, so summary judgment for defendant should not have been entered.CitationREID v GOOGLE (Age Discrimination) 155 CA4 1342 [See: GovC 12940; B&PC 17200 etseq; Californians v Mervyn's 39 C4 223, P/AT 9/06; Kraus v Trinity 23 C4 116, T/AT 7/00; Caldwell v Paramount 41 CA4 189, T/AT 1/96]
|
|
