Moore v. Regents of the University of Calif.
Annotate this CasePlaintiff Deborah Moore appealed a judgment entered in favor of defendant The Regents of the University of California. Moore sued Defendant for claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). Moore began working in UCSD's Marketing and Communications Department (the Department) in 2008. In early September 2010, Moore was diagnosed with idiopathic cardiomyopathy. On or around September 10, 2010, Moore was prescribed and began wearing a heart monitor called a "LifeVest," a monitor and external defibrillator. Moore had to wear the "LifeVest" for two to three weeks. Moore testified that her relationship with the Department's new Executive Director, Kimberly Kennedy changed after Kennedy became aware of Moore's heart condition. Based on this perceived change, Moore believed that Kennedy did not like the fact that Moore had a heart condition. In approximately mid-November 2010, Kennedy demoted Moore, through a Department restructuring, to a new classification. Moore's new title became "Director of Marketing and Brand Management." Moore's salary did not change, but certain other benefits were reduced. On February 2, 2011, Kennedy sent an e-mail to Courtney Morris, a Director of Compensation and Benefits in the Human Resources Department, indicating that she wanted to eliminate Moore's position, effectively terminating Moore's employment, as of February 15, 2011. According to Kennedy, the job functions that Moore was performing had decreased to such a point that Kennedy could assume them, and therefore, Kennedy decided to eliminate Moore's position. Kennedy did not ask Moore if she would accept a pay reduction, nor did Kennedy consider Moore for a freelance position. There is no evidence that Kennedy offered Moore any of the positions that were filled around the time of, or after, her termination. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that summary judgment was improperly granted with respect to Moore's first, second, third, fifth and sixth causes of action. Summary adjudication in favor of Defendant was appropriate, however, with respect to Moore's fourth cause of action. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings in the trial court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.