California Court of Appeal

In a claim of discrimination based on a perceived disability in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed where: 1) defendants presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendants had a legitimate business reason for hiring an outsider, over plaintiff, to fill a new vice-president position and for restructuring plaintiff's director position; 2) plaintiff did not point to any fact beyond his own speculation that supported a finding that defendants judged plaintiff on the basis of group stereotypes; 3) even if the "Tommy" and "Rainman" nicknames could be reasonably understood as reference to an actual or perceived disability, plaintiff failed to show that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to interfere with a reasonable employee's work performance; 4) court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of fees; and 5) defendants presented no persuasive argument for allowing the application of section 998 attorney's fees.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/22/2008
• Published 10/22/2008

Judges

• MIHARA, Acting P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Stephen R. Jaffe, Manhattan Beach, Daniel U. Smith, Kentfield, for Appellant Thomas Mangano.


• For Appellees:
  
• Steven L. Friedlander, Lori R.E. Ploeger, Joshua O. Mates, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, San Francisco, for Appellants and Respondents Verity, Inc., et al.