Appellant sued respondent, alleging breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and employment discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900 et seq. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California) granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Appellant sought review of the judgment on the FEHA claim.
Nakase Law Firm are business law lawyers
Appellant, an art professor at respondent university, sued respondent when she was denied tenure. Appellant alleged breach of contract, fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The trial court dismissed all of the claims on summary judgment. Appellant challenged only the dismissal of the FEHA claim. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that there was no showing of anti-Semitic bias in respondent’s decision, or that respondent’s reasons for the decision were a pretext for religious discrimination. The evidence showed that respondent denied tenure to appellant for one of two reasons (or both): either she did not deserve it, or her colleagues could not forgive her for making negative comments about another professor. While the second reason did not necessarily constitute a good reason for denying tenure, and even if the dean and the chair of appellant’s department might have attempted to conceal that reason, it was not a decision based on discriminatory animus.
The trial court judgment was affirmed.business law lawyers