Case Name: Shasby v. Amalfi Semiconductor, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 1-13-CV-251465

Defendant Amalfi Semiconductor, Inc. (“Amalfi”) moves for summary judgment against plaintiff Aurora Shasby (“Plaintiff”).

As an initial matter, the Court declines to rule on the evidentiary objections submitted by both Plaintiff and Amalfi as each party fails to submit a proposed order as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(c).

Amalfi’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  After full consideration of the evidence, separate statements and authorities submitted by each party, the Court finds that Amalfi has met its initial burden by demonstrating that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s termination- a reduction in force.  (See Amalfi’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Fact 14-16, 35-39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 48, 53-66; Declaration of Joseph Whitty in Support of Amalfi’s Motion for Summary Judgment, at ¶¶ 3, 8.)  Plaintiff fails to present evidence which demonstrates a triable issue that Amalfi’s proffered reason for her termination is false or a pretext for prohibited age discrimination.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); see also Faust v. California Portland Cement Co. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4^th 864, 886.)

Even assuming, arguendo, that the evidence submitted by Plaintiff raises a suspicion that Amalfi’s stated reason for her termination is untruthful, “an inference of intentional discrimination cannot be drawn solely from evidence, if any, that the [defendant employer] lied about its reasons” for the adverse employment action.  (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4^th 317, 360.)  While evidence that an employer’s proffered reasons for termination are “unworthy of credence may considerably assist a circumstantial case of discrimination,” there must be evidence “supporting a rational inference that intentional discrimination, on grounds prohibited by the statute, was the true cause of the employer’s actions. [Citations].”  (Id. (emphasis in original).)  Here, Plaintiff fails to present evidence which supports a rational inference that intentional discrimination on the basis of her age was the true cause of her termination.