Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club, DCA1/1, 12/21/17
Cornell, who is obese, was terminated by Berkeley Tennis Club after she allegedly tried to secretly record a board meeting. She sued for various disability discrimination theories, claiming that the termination was tied to her obsesity. The trial court granted summary judgment to employer on all causes of action, holding that Cornell had failed to established that her obesity resulted from a physiological cause. Held: Reversed as to some causes of action.
The court’s ruling turned on which party has the burden to produce evidence at summary judgment. In opposition to summary judgment, Cornell submitted a medical declataration linking her obesity to metabolism problems; but the trial court excluded that evidence as conclusory. However, and much more importantly for summary judgment analysis, the employer failed to present any evidence (including a medical declaration) to negate Cornell’s claim that her obesity had a physiological cause. On summary judgment, the moving party must negate the element of the claim it attacks on summary judgment—It is not enough for the moving party to posit that the other side can’t prove and element of her claim. Thus, the employer’s failure to produce evidence that negated Cornell’s claim of disability meant that the burden of proof never shifted to plaintiff to establish that she in fact had a disability. Berkeley’s request for summary judgment on the discrimination claim had to be denied.
At trial, of course, the burden of proof to disability would rest entirely with plaintiff.