Excerpt: ...tion to the McDonnell‐Douglas burdenshifting test. Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354 [discrimination and retaliation claims subject to McDonnell‐Douglas]; Greer v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (N.D.Cal. 2012) 855 F.Supp.2d 979, 988‐989 and Sillah v. Command Int'l Sec. Servs. (N.D.Cal. 2015) 154 F.Supp.3d 891, 916 [“Claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and for violation of California Labor Code § 11...

Excerpt: ...21.) A duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third parties is imposed only if there is a “high degree of foreseeability” requiring “prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises.” (Ann m. v. Pac. Plaza Shopping Ctr. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 676, 679; Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 240.) In determining whether the “extraordinarily high degree of foreseeability” has been ...

Excerpt: ...xhibits A and B of the pleading. (TAC, ¶ 8.) Nothing in the offer limited Defendant's ability to terminate Plaintiff nor purported to establish that Plaintiff could only be terminated for good cause. (TAC, Exh. A.) In fact, the employment application expressly indicated that the employment would be “at will”. (TAC, Exh. B, p. 4.) Consequently, Plaintiff has not and cannot establish that Defendant breached any term or promise articulated in t...

Excerpt: ...riminatory conduct on the part of Superintendent‐President Esposito‐Noy, are sufficient to state a claim for gender discrimination. The demurrer to the eighth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is overruled to the extent it is based on the contention that the first amended complaint does not allege sufficient facts indicating extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of defendant. It is true that there may be no...