Fear Not Law CA Pub. Decisions

REEVES, v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC

Filed 7/9/10<br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br
CA Pub. Decisions
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>REEVES, v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >REEVES, v.<br /> MV TRANSPORTATION, INC</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/9/10<br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FIRST<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> ONE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>DAVID B.<br /> REEVES,<br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/>v.<br /> <br/>MV<br /> TRANSPORTATION, INC.,<br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> A125927<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Solano<br /> County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct.<br /> No. FCS030265)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff<br /> David B. Reeves, age 56, applied for a position as a staff attorney with<br /> defendant MV Transportation, Inc. He was<br /> not one of the people chosen to be interviewed, and the job was given to<br /> someone forty years old. He sued<br /> defendant for age discrimination, and the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff contends that there are triable issues arising from his superior<br /> qualifications for the position, defendant's inconsistent explanations for not<br /> hiring him, and defendant's spoliation of evidence. We disagree and affirm the judgment for<br /> defendant.<br /> <br/><b >I. BACKGROUND</b><br /> <br/> Defendant's<br /> General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer John Biard posted a notice on the<br /> Association of Corporate Counsel website in January 2005 of a staff attorney<br /> opening with defendant. The notice read: â€
← Back to CA Pub. Decisions · Knowledge Base
Lean view · served in 1 ms · full site view