Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente International

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting “contrary argument, if accepted, 27 would eviscerate the McDonnell Douglas framework . . . [by] preclud[ing] the employer 1 articulated legitimate reasons for the employment termination”
• analyzing FEHA claim and wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy together
• applying burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), to claim of retaliatory wrongful termination in violation of public policy under California law
• noting “to permit the 6 inference of a causal nexus … the case law suggests the employer’s action must follow ‘within a relatively 7 short time’ and the plaintiff cited “no case holding that a nine-month hiatus between protected conduct 8 qualifies as a ‘relatively short time’”
• “When a plaintiff alleges retaliatory employment termination ... as a claim for wrongful employment termination in violation of public policy, and the defendant seeks summary judgment, California follows the burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp.”
• plaintiffs “averment raises a factual issue of whether she engaged in protected conduct that was temporally close to and preceding the adverse employment action, which sufficed to shift the burden to” defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).