Ah...text and sub-text. First the text: A Motion for Summary Judgment by the Employer to obtain "summary adjudication" (Trial by Paper) of issues raised by the employee: discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Trial Court granted the motion. So far, nothing unusual.
Except . . . a bulldog plaintiff's attorney appealed, and the resulting "subtext" was anything but usual. The Court of Appeal excoriated the defense firm, and particularly the defense attorney who had been admonished for similar behavior before. ("excoriated": to be taken to the wood shed). The Court of Appeal had little nice to say about the Trial Court for that matter, pointing out that its blanket sustaining of 763 of 764 evidentiary objections by the Defendant, viewed together with its overruling of all of the employee's 47 objections had, well, the appearance of, shall I say it, bias. Here's some interesting data cited by the Court that should bring all tree huggers to the front lines: The employer's motion consisted of 1056 pages, including 196 pages of "separate statement", while the employee's opposition was about 3,000 pages long! The employee's opposition included a "separate statement" of 1894 pages. What does all this mean? Not much, stated the Court of Appeal, because the content was largely trivial and unrelated to the core issues of the case. What disturbed the Court of Appeal was that "looking at the forest", basic issues of discrimination and retaliation are not susceptible to determination by paper war.
Therein is the value of the case for employees. The lengthy decision is replete with language that discourages the granting of summary judgment in discrimination and retaliation cases. The Court of Appeal affirmed procedural safeguards for the employee who might otherwise have to hire his own team of loggers to produce an opposing mountain of paper.
As Shakespeare noted, and I think the Nazir Court would join: "Brevity is the soul of wit".
"If the pink slip doesn't fit,