2011-00115305-CU-WT

Eugene Uzodinma vs. Blue Diamond Growers

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Filed By: Lynch, Raymond F.

Defendant Blue Diamond Growers’ (“BDG”) motion for summary judgment or, in the
alternative, summary adjudication of issues, is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED as
follows:

This case involves an employment dispute. Plaintiff Eugene Uzodinma (“Uzodinma”)
contends, among other things, that he suffered discrimination on the basis of national
origin (North African). He has pleaded causes of action for discrimination (FEHA),
wrongful termination in violation of public policy, harassment (FEHA) and retaliation
(FEHA). BDG moves for summary adjudication of each of these causes of action and,
therefore, for summary judgment.

The First and Second Causes of Action for National Origin Discrimination (FEHA) and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

Summary adjudication is GRANTED.

Both the first and second causes of action are predicated upon BDG’s alleged
discrimination against Uzodinma based upon national origin. BDG moves for
summary adjudication on grounds that Uzodinma cannot establish any such
discrimination.

With its moving papers, BDG has produced evidence that Uzodinma was terminated
after he exhibited bizarre behavior at work and then tested positive for cocaine use.
This and BDG’s other evidence demonstrate the nonexistence of any triable issue
whether BDG discriminated against Uzodinma on the basis of his national origin and
whether BDG, having a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to terminate Uzodinma,
used that reason as a pretext. Thus, the burden of production shifts to Uzodinma.

Uzodinma has not produced any responsive evidence and has not otherwise opposed
the motion. Accordingly, BDG is entitled to adjudication as a matter of law.

The Third Cause of Action for Harassment (FEHA)

Summary adjudication is GRANTED.

BDG moves for summary adjudication on grounds that Uzodinma cannot establish any
severe or pervasive harassment based on national origin. BDG’s evidence submitted
with the moving papers satisfies BDG’s initial burden of production, thereby shifting the
burden to Uzodinma. Because Uzodinma has not opposed the motion with any
evidence, he has not met his responsive burden, and BDG is entitled to summary
adjudication.

The court does not address BDG’s further argument that Uzodinma failed to exhaust
administrative remedies.

The Fourth Cause of Action for Retaliation (FEHA)

Summary adjudication is GRANTED.

BDG moves for summary adjudication on grounds that Uzodinma cannot establish that
he engaged in any protected activity. BDG’s evidence satisfies BDG’s initial burden of
production. Because Uzodinma has not opposed the motion with any evidence, he
has not met his responsive burden, and BDG is entitled to summary adjudication.

The court does not address BDG’s further argument that Uzodinma failed to exhaust
administrative remedies.

Judicial Notice

BDG’s request for judicial notice of the first amended complaint is GRANTED. The
balance of the request is DENIED as irrelevant.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, BDG is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Pursuant to CRC 3.1312, BDG is directed to submit a revised formal order that is
consistent with the instant ruling, and a judgment.