Court Opinion

ID: 9629589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:45:43.670116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:53.013617
License: Public Domain

Morse, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully disagree with the result. While the superior court collapsed the steps of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, it is beyond doubt that the court would ultimately determine that CVMC did not discriminate. The court found several nondiscriminatory reasons justifying CVMC’s decision, including plaintiff’s lack of supervisory experience, inflexible attitude, use of profanity and offensive remarks, sexist views of women, and “inappropriate” contact with a co-worker. As the court concluded, “he was not supervisory material.” These reasons were found as facts sufficiently persuasive to deny plaintiff relief, and, therefore, would not be found “pretextual” if we remanded for an explicit finding. The conclusion that CVMC was not liable is foregone. I would avoid the unnecessary expense and delay and affirm.