The trial court erred in granting the employer’s summary judgment motion in this age discrimination and retaliation case. The employee established a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing he was over 40 years old and performing his job competently when he was terminated and by showing that he was one of five older Spanish-speaking employees fired or suspended when a new manager took over and he was replaced by worker who was 13 years younger. The employer failed to prove a nondiscriminatory reason for plaintiff’s termination. It could not rely on the Immigration Control and Reform Act because that act requires proof of immigration status only for new hires, not employees reinstated after a disciplinary suspension nor employees hired before 1986. Also, any discrimination based on immigration status violated California public policy.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Pregerson, J.); April 7, 2017; 2017 WL 1289971