Factor v. Mercy Services
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>Factor v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Factor v. Mercy Services <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 3/9/11 Factor v. Mercy Services CA1/3 <br/> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b >NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS</b> <br/> <br/> <br/>California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115<b >.</b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br/> <br/>FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT <br/> <br/>DIVISION THREE <br/> <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=319 valign=top > <br/>DIOSDADO FACTOR, <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant, <br/>v. <br/>MERCY SERVICES CORPORATION, <br/> Defendant and Respondent. </td> <td width=319 valign=top > <br/> <br/> <br/> A128459 <br/> <br/> (City & <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">County San Francisco</a> <br/> Super. Ct. No. CGC-08-471194) <br/> </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/> In this action challenging his termination from employment, plaintiff Diosdado Factor, Jr., appeals from a <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">summary judgment</a> in favor of his former employer, Mercy Services Corporation (Mercy). He contends his evidence raises a triable issue of material fact as to whether his termination resulted from <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">discriminatory</a> or retaliatory animus. We conclude that the overwhelming, undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff was terminated for legitimate business reasons and that plaintiff presented no evidence suggesting that those reasons were <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">pretextual</a>. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment. <br/><b >FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b> <br/> Plaintiff's third amended complaint alleges causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12940 et seq.,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> for discrimination, harassment and retaliation, as well as a cause of action for <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">wrongful termination in violation of public policy</a>. Mercy moved for summary judgment. The following undisputed facts were submitted in support of Mercy's motion: <br/> â€