From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hager v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Apr 22, 2010
No. B208941 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2010)

Summary

In Hager v. County of Los Angeles ((Apr. 22, 2010, B208941) [nonpub. opn.]) (Hager I), we held that plaintiff Darren Hager could pursue his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against his employers, defendants the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (collectively, County).

Summary of this case from Hager v. County of Los Angeles

Opinion


DARREN HAGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants and Respondents. B208941 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Third Division April 22, 2010

Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC370326

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

Good cause appearing, the opinion in the above entitled matter, filed on March 25, 2010, Not For Publication, is hereby modified as follows:

(1) Delete the two paragraphs starting with the third paragraph on page 15 through the end of the first full paragraph on page 16.

(2) Delete the two sentences on page 18, line 12, starting with “Then, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate” to the end of the paragraph, and replace with:

Then, the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. (Morgan v. Regents of University of California, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 68.) Finally, the burden returns to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s proffered reason was a pretext to mask an illegal motive. (Ibid.; Mokler, supra.)

The petition for rehearing is denied.

There is no change in the judgment.


Summaries of

Hager v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Apr 22, 2010
No. B208941 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2010)

In Hager v. County of Los Angeles ((Apr. 22, 2010, B208941) [nonpub. opn.]) (Hager I), we held that plaintiff Darren Hager could pursue his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against his employers, defendants the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (collectively, County).

Summary of this case from Hager v. County of Los Angeles

In Hager v. County of Los Angeles ((Apr. 22, 2010, B208941) [nonpub. opn.]) (Hager I), we held that plaintiff Darren Hager could pursue his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against his employers, defendants the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (collectively, County).

Summary of this case from Hager v. County of Los Angeles

In Hager v. County of Los Angeles ((Apr. 22, 2010, B208941) [nonpub. opn.]) (Hager I), we held that plaintiff Darren Hager could pursue his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against his employers, defendants the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (collectively, County).

Summary of this case from Hager v. County of Los Angeles
Case details for

Hager v. County of Los Angeles

Case Details

Full title:DARREN HAGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

Date published: Apr 22, 2010

Citations

No. B208941 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2010)

Citing Cases

Hager v. County of Los Angeles

All further undesignated statutory references are to the Labor Code. In Hager v. County of Los Angeles ((Apr.…

Hager v. County of Los Angeles

All further undesignated statutory references are to the Labor Code. In Hager v. County of Los Angeles ((Apr.…