{"id":1297,"date":"2021-10-25T03:50:50","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:50:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=1297"},"modified":"2022-05-05T17:04:31","modified_gmt":"2022-05-05T17:04:31","slug":"caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a))"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kumcklgg-c3bb9aabf4a92141e5b842ae8cea845e\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-kumcklgg-c3bb9aabf4a92141e5b842ae8cea845e{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-kumcklgg-c3bb9aabf4a92141e5b842ae8cea845e .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-kumcklgg-c3bb9aabf4a92141e5b842ae8cea845e .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-kumcklgg-c3bb9aabf4a92141e5b842ae8cea845e av-special-heading-h1 blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_hr  avia-builder-el-first '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a))<\/h1><div class='av-subheading av-subheading_below'><p>California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"special-heading-border\"><div class=\"special-heading-inner-border\"><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_heading  el_before_avia_sc_search '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7\">\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchform_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nborder-color:#edae44;\nbackground-color:#edae44;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #s.av-input-field{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #searchsubmit{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchsubmit_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n.ajax_search_response.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7{\npadding:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nmargin:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='avia_search_element av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7  avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_hr  el_before_av_textblock '><search><form action='https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/' id='searchform_element' method='get' class='' data-element_id='av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7' ><div class='av_searchform_wrapper'><input type='search' value='' id='s' name='s' placeholder='Search CACI' aria-label='Search CACI' class='av-input-field ' required \/><div class='av_searchsubmit_wrapper '><input type='submit' value='Find' id='searchsubmit' class='button ' title='View results on search page' aria-label='View results on search page' \/><\/div><input type='hidden' name='numberposts' value='8' \/><input type='hidden' name='post_type' value='page' \/><input type='hidden' name='results_hide_fields' value='post_titles,meta,image' \/><\/div><\/form><\/search><\/div>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-av_textblock-e878f05c31dff72941bf1e49a00d9ff5 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/\">CACI Jury Instructions Index<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/caci-fillable-forms.crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">App: CACI Jury Instructions Fillable Forms Word Format<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-kumclqmn-a999b4bd4943978f5f5ec3528e8aeb0c\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-kumclqmn-a999b4bd4943978f5f5ec3528e8aeb0c .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-kumclqmn-a999b4bd4943978f5f5ec3528e8aeb0c '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">2500\u00a0Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a))<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] claims that [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] wrongfully discriminated against [him\/her\/<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">nonbinary pronoun<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]. To establish this claim, [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] must prove all of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">1.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was [an employer\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other covered entity<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">2.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [was an employee of [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\/applied to [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] for a job\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">describe<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other covered relationship to defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">3.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] [discharged\/refused to hire\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other<\/span>\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">];]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[or]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] subjected [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] to an adverse employment action;]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[or]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">[That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was constructively discharged;]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">4.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">protected status\u2014for example, race, gender, or age<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was a substantial motivating reason for [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s [decision to [discharge\/refuse to hire\/[<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">other adverse employment action<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]] [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\/conduct];<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">5.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">] was harmed; and<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">6.<\/span><\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">That [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of defendant<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [<\/span><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">name of plaintiff<\/span><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">]\u2019s harm. <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\"><\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_1\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">New September 2003; Revised April 2009, June 2011, June 2012, June 2013, May 2020 <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">Crowdsource Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\">https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci<\/a><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\"><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Directions for Use<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_2\">\n<p>This instruction is intended for use when a plaintiff alleges disparate treatment discrimination under the FEHA against an employer or other covered entity. Disparate treatment occurs when an employer treats an individual less favorably than others because of the individual\u2019s protected status. In contrast, disparate impact (the other general theory of discrimination) occurs when an employer has an employment practice that appears neutral but has an adverse impact on members of a protected group. For disparate impact claims, see\u00a0CACI No.\u20022502,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Disparate Impact\u2014Essential Factual Elements<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>If element 1 is given, the court may need to instruct the jury on the statutory definition of \u201cemployer\u201d under the FEHA. Other covered entities under the FEHA include labor organizations, employment agencies, and apprenticeship training programs. (See\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a)\u2013(d).)<\/p>\n<p>Read the first option for element 3 if there is no dispute as to whether the employer\u2019s acts constituted an adverse employment action. Read the second option and also give\u00a0CACI No. 2509,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cAdverse Employment Action\u201d Explained<\/span>, if whether there was an adverse employment action is a question of fact for the jury. If constructive discharge is alleged, give the third option for element 3 and also give\u00a0CACI No. 2510,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cConstructive Discharge\u201d Explained<\/span>. Select \u201cconduct\u201d in element 4 if either the second or third option is included for element 3.<\/p>\n<p>Note that there are two causation elements. There must be a causal link between the discriminatory animus and the adverse action (see element 4), and there must be a causal link between the adverse action and the damage (see element 6). (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 713 [81 Cal.Rptr.3d 406].)<\/p>\n<p>Element 4 requires that discrimination based on a protected classification be a substantial motivating reason for the adverse action. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris v. City of Santa Monica<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 392, 294 P.3d 49]; see also\u00a0CACI No. 2507,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">\u201cSubstantial Motivating Reason\u201d Explained<\/span>.) Modify element 4 if plaintiff was not actually a member of the protected class, but alleges discrimination because the plaintiff was perceived to be a member, or associated with someone who was or was perceived to be a member, of the protected class. (See\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912926(o).)<\/p>\n<p>For damages instructions, see applicable instructions on tort damages. <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Sources and Authority<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Discrimination Prohibited Under Fair Employment and Housing Act.\u00a0Government Code section 12940(a).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">Perception and Association.\u00a0Government Code section 12926(o).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cRace\u201d and \u201cProtective Hairstyles.\u201d\u00a0Government Code section 12926(w),\u00a0(x).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[C]onceptually the theory of \u2018[disparate] treatment\u2019 \u2026 is the most easily understood type of discrimination. The employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Mixon v. Fair Employment and Housing Com.<\/span>\u00a0(1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1306, 1317 [237 Cal.Rptr. 884], quoting\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Teamsters v. United States<\/span>\u00a0(1977) 431 U.S. 324, 335\u2013336, fn. 15 [97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cCalifornia has adopted the three-stage burden-shifting test for discrimination claims set forth in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green<\/span>\u00a0(1973) 411 U.S. 792 [93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed. 2d 668]. \u2018This so-called\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McDonnell Douglas<\/span>\u00a0test reflects the principle that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is rare, and that such claims must usually be proved circumstantially. Thus, by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 307 [115 Cal.Rptr.3d 453], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McDonnell Douglas<\/span>\u00a0framework was designed as \u2018an analytical tool for use by the trial judge in applying the law, not a concept to be understood and applied by the jury in the factfinding process.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Abed v. Western Dental Services, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 726, 737 [233 Cal.Rptr.3d 242].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAt trial, the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McDonnell Douglas<\/span>\u00a0test places on the plaintiff the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. This step is designed to eliminate at the outset the most patently meritless claims, as where the plaintiff is not a member of the protected class or was clearly unqualified, or where the job he sought was withdrawn and never filled. While the plaintiff\u2019s prima facie burden is \u2018not onerous\u2019, he must at least show \u2018\u2009\u201cactions taken by the employer from which one can infer, if such actions remain unexplained, that it is more likely than not that such actions were \u2018based on a [prohibited] discriminatory criterion\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u2019\u2009\u2026\u2009.\u201d \u2026\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354\u2013355 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIf, at trial, the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, a presumption of discrimination arises. This presumption, though \u2018rebuttable,\u2019 is \u2018legally mandatory.\u2019 Thus, in a trial, \u2018[i]f the trier of fact believes the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, and if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff because no issue of fact remains in the case.\u2019 [\u00b6] Accordingly, at this trial stage, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption by producing admissible evidence, sufficient to \u2018raise[] a genuine issue of fact\u2019 and to \u2018justify a judgment for the [employer],\u2019 that its action was taken for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. [\u00b6] If the employer sustains this burden, the presumption of discrimination disappears. The plaintiff must then have the opportunity to attack the employer\u2019s proffered reasons as pretexts for discrimination, or to offer any other evidence of discriminatory motive. In an appropriate case, evidence of dishonest reasons, considered together with the elements of the prima facie case, may permit a finding of prohibited bias. The ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of actual discrimination remains with the plaintiff.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Guz<\/span>,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">supra<\/span>, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 355\u2013356, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe trial court decides the first two stages of the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">McDonnell Douglas<\/span>\u00a0test as questions of law. If the plaintiff and defendant satisfy their respective burdens, the presumption of discrimination disappears and the question whether the defendant unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff is submitted to the jury to decide whether it believes the defendant\u2019s or the plaintiff\u2019s explanation.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist.<\/span>\u00a0(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954, 965 [181 Cal.Rptr.3d 553].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cTo succeed on a disparate treatment claim at trial, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, to wit, a set of circumstances that, if unexplained, permit an inference that it is more likely than not the employer intentionally treated the employee less favorably than others on prohibited grounds. Based on the inherent difficulties of showing intentional discrimination, courts have generally adopted a multifactor test to determine if a plaintiff was subject to disparate treatment. The plaintiff must generally show that: he or she was a member of a protected class; was qualified for the position he sought; suffered an adverse employment action, and there were circumstances suggesting that the employer acted with a discriminatory motive. [\u00b6] On a defense motion for summary judgment against a disparate treatment claim, the defendant must show either that one of these elements cannot be established or that there were one or more legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons underlying the adverse employment action.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Jones v. Department of Corrections<\/span>\u00a0(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1379 [62 Cal.Rptr.3d 200], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough \u2018[t]he specific elements of a prima facie case may vary depending on the particular facts,\u2019 the plaintiff in a failure-to-hire case \u2018[g]enerally \u2026 must provide evidence that (1) he [or she] was a member of a protected class, (2) he [or she] was qualified for the position he [or she] sought \u2026\u2009, (3) he [or she] suffered an adverse employment action, such as \u2026 denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive,\u2019 such as that the position remained open and the employer continued to solicit applications for it.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Abed, supra,\u00a0<\/span>23 Cal.App.5th at p. 736.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cAlthough we recognize that in most cases, a plaintiff who did not apply for a position will be unable to prove a claim of discriminatory failure to hire, a job application is not an\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">element<\/span>\u00a0of the claim.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Abed, supra,<\/span>\u00a023 Cal.App.5th at p. 740, original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cEmployers who lie about the existence of open positions are not immune from liability under the FEHA simply because they are effective in keeping protected persons from applying.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Abed, supra,<\/span>\u00a023 Cal.App.5th at p. 741.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[Defendant] still could shift the burden to [plaintiff] by presenting admissible evidence showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her. \u2018It is the employer\u2019s honest belief in the stated reasons for firing an employee and not the objective truth or falsity of the underlying facts that is at issue in a discrimination case.\u2019 \u2026 \u2018[I]f nondiscriminatory, [the employer\u2019s] true reasons need not necessarily have been wise or correct.\u2009\u2026 While the objective soundness of an employer\u2019s proffered reasons supports their credibility\u2009\u2026\u2009, the ultimate issue is simply whether the employer acted with\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">a motive to discriminate illegally<\/span>. Thus, \u201clegitimate\u201d reasons \u2026 in this context are reasons that are\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">facially unrelated to prohibited bias<\/span>, and which, if true, would thus preclude a finding\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">of discrimination<\/span>.\u2009\u2026\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Wills v. Superior Court<\/span>\u00a0(2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 170\u2013171 [125 Cal.Rptr.3d 1], original italics, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe burden therefore shifted to [plaintiff] to present evidence showing the [defendant] engaged in intentional discrimination. To meet her burden, [plaintiff] had to present evidence showing (1) the [defendant]\u2019s stated reason for not renewing her contract was untrue or pretextual; (2) the [defendant] acted with a discriminatory animus in not renewing her contract; or (3) a combination of the two.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Swanson, supra<\/span>, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 966.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cEvidence that an employer\u2019s proffered reasons were pretextual does not necessarily establish that the employer intentionally discriminated: \u2018\u2009\u201c\u2009\u2018[I]t is not enough \u2026 to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder must believe the plaintiff\u2019s explanation of intentional discrimination.\u2019\u2009\u201d\u2009\u2019 However, evidence of pretext is important: \u2018\u2009\u201c[A] plaintiff\u2019s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer\u2019s asserted justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.\u201d\u2009\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Diego v. City of Los Angeles<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 338, 350\u2013351 [223 Cal.Rptr.3d 173], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhile a complainant need not prove that [discriminatory] animus was the sole motivation behind a challenged action, he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a \u2018causal connection\u2019 between the employee\u2019s protected status and the adverse employment decision.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Mixon, supra<\/span>, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1319.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cRequiring the plaintiff to show that discrimination was a\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">substantial<\/span>\u00a0motivating factor, rather than simply\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">a<\/span>\u00a0motivating factor, more effectively ensures that liability will not be imposed based on evidence of mere thoughts or passing statements unrelated to the disputed employment decision. At the same time,\u2009\u2026 proof that discrimination was a\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">substantial<\/span>\u00a0factor in an employment decision triggers the deterrent purpose of the FEHA and thus exposes the employer to liability, even if other factors would have led the employer to make the same decision at the time.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris<\/span>,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">supra<\/span>, 56 Cal.4th at p. 232, original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe do not suggest that discrimination must be alone sufficient to bring about an employment decision in order to constitute a substantial motivating factor. But it is important to recognize that discrimination can be serious, consequential, and even by itself determinative of an employment decision without also being a \u201cbut for\u201d cause.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Harris<\/span>,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">supra<\/span>, 56 Cal.4th at p. 229.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cIn cases involving a comparison of the plaintiff\u2019s qualifications and those of the successful candidate, we must assume that a reasonable juror who might disagree with the employer\u2019s decision, but would find the question close, would not usually infer discrimination on the basis of a comparison of qualifications alone. In a close case, a reasonable juror would usually assume that the employer is more capable of assessing the significance of small differences in the qualifications of the candidates, or that the employer simply made a judgment call. [Citation.] But this does not mean that a reasonable juror would in every case defer to the employer\u2019s assessment. If that were so, no job discrimination case could ever go to trial. If a factfinder can conclude that a reasonable employer would have found the plaintiff to be\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">significantly better<\/span>\u00a0qualified for the job, but this employer did not, the factfinder can legitimately infer that the employer consciously selected a less-qualified candidate\u2014something that employers do not usually do, unless some other strong consideration, such as discrimination, enters into the picture.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 666, 674\u2013675 [111 Cal.Rptr.3d 896], original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhile not all cases hold that \u2018the disparity in candidates\u2019 qualifications \u201cmust be so apparent as to jump off the page and slap us in the face to support a finding of pretext\u201d\u2009\u2019 the precedents do consistently require that the disparity be substantial to support an inference of discrimination.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Reeves<\/span>,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">supra<\/span>, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 675, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[Defendant] contends that a trial court must assess the relative strength and nature of the evidence presented on summary judgment in determining if the plaintiff has \u2018created only a weak issue of fact.\u2019 However, [defendant] overlooks that a review of all of the evidence is essential to that assessment. The stray remarks doctrine, as advocated by [defendant], goes further. It allows a court to weigh and assess the remarks in isolation, and to disregard the potentially damaging nature of discriminatory remarks simply because they are made by \u2018nondecisionmakers, or [made] by decisionmakers unrelated to the decisional process.\u2019 [Defendant] also argues that ambiguous remarks are stray, irrelevant, prejudicial, and inadmissible. However, \u2018the task of disambiguating ambiguous utterances is for trial, not for summary judgment.\u2019 Determining the weight of discriminatory or ambiguous remarks is a role reserved for the jury. The stray remarks doctrine allows the trial court to remove this role from the jury.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Reid v. Google, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 540\u2013541 [113 Cal.Rptr.3d 327, 235 P.3d 988], internal citations omitted; see also\u00a0Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912923(c)\u00a0[Legislature affirms the decision in\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Reid v. Google, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0in its rejection of the \u201cstray remarks doctrine\u201d].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[D]iscriminatory remarks can be relevant in determining whether intentional discrimination occurred: \u2018Although stray remarks may not have strong probative value when viewed in isolation, they may corroborate direct evidence of discrimination or gain significance in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence. Certainly, who made the comments, when they were made in relation to the adverse employment decision, and in what context they were made are all factors that should be considered.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Husman v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1168, 1190\u20131191 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 42].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cDiscrimination on the basis of an employee\u2019s foreign accent is a sufficient basis for finding national origin discrimination.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Galvan v. Dameron Hospital Assn.<\/span>\u00a0(2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 549, 562 [250 Cal.Rptr.3d 16].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cBecause of the similarity between state and federal employment discrimination laws, California courts look to pertinent federal precedent when applying our own statutes.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Guz, supra<\/span>, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWe have held \u2018that, in a civil action under the FEHA, all relief generally available in noncontractual actions \u2026 may be obtained.\u2019 This includes injunctive relief.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 980 P.2d 846], internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe FEHA does not itself authorize punitive damages. It is, however, settled that California\u2019s punitive damages statute,\u00a0Civil Code section 3294, applies to actions brought under the FEHA \u2026\u2009.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Weeks v. Baker &amp; McKenzie<\/span>\u00a0(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1147\u20131148 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510], internal citations omitted.) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"SS_Heading\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\"><span class=\"SS_ib\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_ib\">Secondary Sources<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<div>8 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Constitutional Law, \u00a7\u00a7\u20091143\u20131147<\/div>\n<div>Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 7-A,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Title VII And The California Fair Employment And Housing Act<\/span>, \u00b6\u00b6\u20097:194, 7:200\u20137:201, 7:356, 7:391\u20137:392 (The Rutter Group)<\/div>\n<div>1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Discrimination Claims, \u00a7\u00a7\u20092.44\u20132.82<\/div>\n<div>3 Wilcox,\u00a0California Employment Law, Ch. 43,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Civil Actions Under Equal Employment Opportunity Laws<\/span>, \u00a7\u200943.01\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>11\u00a0California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 115,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Civil Rights: Employment Discrimination<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009115.23[2]\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation, \u00a7\u00a7\u20092:2, 2:20 (Thomson Reuters)<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-7krcdd-f1e6460fda547d5a475e9d30b2544690 hr-default  avia-builder-el-6  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-5vdrm9-2f04b02779dd549e115792952be3f7c2\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-5vdrm9-2f04b02779dd549e115792952be3f7c2 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-5vdrm9-2f04b02779dd549e115792952be3f7c2 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">CrowdSourceLawyers.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1297","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-\u00a7-12940a\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-\u00a7-12940a\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-05T17:04:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:50:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-05T17:04:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/home\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a))\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"description\":\"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"width\":453,\"height\":208,\"caption\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-\u00a7-12940a\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-\u00a7-12940a\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-05T17:04:31+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\/","name":"CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a)) - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:50:50+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-05T17:04:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-2500-disparate-treatment-essential-factual-elements-gov-code-%c2%a7-12940a\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CACI 2500 Disparate Treatment\u2014Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, \u00a7\u200912940(a))"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","description":"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization","name":"CrowdSource Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","width":453,"height":208,"caption":"CrowdSource Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1297"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3777,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1297\/revisions\/3777"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}