Gordon v. City of Santa Monica

Filed 4/17/06 Gordon v. City of Santa Monica CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Rolf M. Treu, Judge. Affirmed.

Initiative Legal Group, Mark Yablonovich, Marc Primo, Christopher Nissen for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney, Lance S. Gams, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

Appellant Patricia Gordon sued the City of Santa Monica (City) for gender and age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) The trial court nonsuited appellant following the presentation of her case. We affirm. Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination at trial.

FACTS

Events Leading To Appellant's Lawsuit

Appellant is a horticulturist who began working for the City's Parks Department in 1991. Her duties are to design and landscape City-owned areas using drought tolerant plants; to install drip irrigation systems; to use beneficial insects to control pests and weeds; and to prune trees. Her position with the City does not include any supervisory duties. Appellant owned a landscaping company from 1985 until 1991, which required her to periodically hire laborers for the installation of irrigation systems. The landscaping business was not a full-time job for appellant.

In May 2000, appellant applied for a newly created position with the City as â€