Exhibit J – Midjourny Name List (Andersen vs. Stability AI) [pdf]

Jan 2, 2024 ·

This case involved the appeal of a summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the defendant, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff, a former employee of the City, alleged that her termination was a result of age discrimination and sought damages under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the City had proven that the plaintiff's termination was due to poor job performance.

The court held that the City provided sufficient evidence to support its claim that the plaintiff was negligent in performing her job duties. For example, the City demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to adequately complete several tasks, including responding to customer complaints and responding to requests for information from other departments. Additionally, the City produced evidence that the plaintiff did not follow directions from her supervisors, often took longer than necessary to complete her work, and frequently failed to meet deadlines.

The court also found that the City had taken appropriate disciplinary action prior to terminating the plaintiff's employment. The court noted that the City had given the plaintiff warnings, as well as offered her training and opportunities to improve her performance. The court concluded that these steps evidenced the City's good faith efforts to address any issues with the plaintiff's job performance before taking further disciplinary action.

Ultimately, the appellate court found that the City had met its burden of proving that the plaintiff was terminated for reasons unrelated to her age. As such, the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. The appellate court concluded that the City had acted lawfully in terminating the plaintiff's employment and that she was not entitled to recover damages under FEHA.