Summary Judgment Reversed In Age Discrimination Employment Case.

From 1987 until she was discharged in 2008, at age 61, plaintiff worked at a hospital as a diet technician. She allegedly received the highest ratings until a new supervisor was hired in 2007 and thought plaintiff had numerous shortcomings on the job. In plaintiff’s employment action against the hospital, which included a claim of age discrimination, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. In reversing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court noted that an employer does not conclusively establish the governing standard of competence in an employment discrimination action “merely by asserting that the plaintiff’s performance was less than satisfactory,” and that, in the instant case, the trial court concluded plaintiff failed to show competent performance “because the evidence showed that she ‘made several mistakes on menus between January and May in 2008.’” In considering the evidence that the hospital prepared about 500 meals a day from 500 different processing menus, the appellate court further noted that “there was strong evidence before the court that the hospital, under its own written policies, anticipated and expected such mistakes, because, given the nature of the work, they are inevitable.” Apparently frustrated with the manner in which motions for summary judgment are dealt with, the appellate court stated: “As too often happens, the merits of the case were obscured to the point of invisibility in the deluge of statements, counter-statements and objections, that mark modern summary judgment practice. The record clearly raises triable issues of fact with respect to whether plaintiff was performing adequately at the time of her discharge and whether the discharge was the product of a belief to the contrary, or of discriminatory animus against older workers on the part of plaintiff’s immediate supervisor. We will therefore reverse the judgment.” (Cheal v. El Camino Hospital (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.; January 31, 2014) (As mod. February 14, 2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 736, [167 Cal.Rptr.3d 485].)