California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently reversed a summary judgment for defendant employer in a lengthy opinion which made me wonder, “What was the trial judge thinking?”

In Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the court reversed summary judgment on five causes of action and sustained summary adjudication on only one cause of action.

Plaintiff sued her employer for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation in violation of FEHA, retaliation and interference in violation of CFRA. The only claim plaintiff lost on was the retaliation claim under FEHA and that was only because the law changed after the events described in the complaint occurred, and the change in the law did not apply retroactively.

This is a fairly typical disability discrimination case in which an employee informs her employer that she has a medical condition and then the employer does everything it can to make the employee’s life difficult, eventually leading to a convenient RIF layoff. (That’s what they always say.)

I won’t get into all the details here, but this opinion does have a good discussion of pretext, and it’s definitely worth a read.

This is a good case because of the factual details and the court’s analysis. It’s a keeper, and a win for plaintiffs.

It also makes me wonder what the hell is going on at the Great Bastion of Progressivism, The University of California system. It seems almost a daily occurrence that some professor is sexually harassing a student or something. And they’re not even frat boys!

Even Mother Jones is wondering what the hell is going on. MJ even put together a list of alleged sexual improprieties!

It’s apparent after reading this case that disability discrimination is alive and well at the UC System, too, despite its own policies.

Moore v. Regents of the University of California
June 20, 2016