California law does not go so far. Defendants must make an affirmative showing in support of their motion. This they failed to do, and defendant Reese's motion summary adjudication on the basis of coroprate separateness is denied . Summary adjudication is denied as to the second cause of action. In all 3 cases, it is defendants' burden as moving parties to affirmatively negate the elements they attack through admissible evidence.
Defendants similarly fail to put on evidentiary facts of undue hardship.
The requirements to show undue hardship include nature and cost of the accommodation, overall financial resources of the employer, including number of employees, type of operations, compostition and functions of the workforce, and the effect on expenses and resources or other impact of the accommodation upon the operation of the company. Although short on allegations of fact, the complaint manages to state a prima facie cause of action. The burden for moving parties therefore was to establish that the termination was for a legitimate business reason. Defendants' evidence does not establish what it claims, that plaintiff was replaced following an absence during which plaintiff failed to provide defendant with information regarding his prospects of returning to work, and that it was impractical to continue to hold plaintiff's position open for an unlimited period of time. The burden never shifted to plaintff.