In Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, the plaintiff was a Muslim of Pakistani origin who alleged his employment as an airline mechanic was terminated for discriminatory reasons. (Nazir, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 257.) The investigation in question involved a complaint by a female employee that plaintiff had made several inappropriate comments about females to her and grabbed her by the arm. (Id. at p. 276.) The airline's investigations of the harassment complaint against the plaintiff found the allegations were true and his employment was terminated. (Id. at pp. 276-277.) The investigation was conducted by the plaintiff's supervisor and a labor relations person. (Id. at p. 277.) The defendant submitted 764 objections to plaintiff's evidence, set forth in 324 pages. (Id. at p. 249.) The only indication of the trial court's analysis and ruling on the objections in Nazir was the order granting the defendant's motion after the matter was submitted for decision, in which the court overruled one objection and sustained the remaining 763 objections. (Id. at p. 250.) Nazir agreed with the plaintiff that the blanket ruling sustaining all (but one) objections was error. (Ibid.) In Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, the court criticized the "girth" of the papers submitted on the summary judgment motion, the inappropriateness of papers submitted, and "the misleading picture those papers presented." (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at pp. 252-253.) It also criticized the trial court's ruling on the over-700 evidentiary objections, stating: "It is true that the trial court 'ruled,' however conclusorily, that all objections save one were sustained. This is hardly a ruling, as it could not provide any meaningful basis for review." (Id. at p. 255.) Additionally, the court observed "that many employment cases present issues of intent, and motive, and hostile working environment, issues not determinable on paper. Such cases, we caution, are rarely appropriate for disposition on summary judgment . . . ." (Id. at p. 286.) In short, the plaintiff, a mechanic supervisor, sued his employer, United Airlines, for harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The plaintiff was terminated after a complaint of sexual harassment was made against him. He contended the employer's investigation was conducted by a biased individual. Finding triable issues of fact, the appellate court reversed a summary judgment for the airline.