Can a plaintiff rely on the termination of her employment with defendant as the adverse employment action for the purposes of her retaliation cause of action?

Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relying on the termination of her employment with defendant as the adverse employment action for this cause of action. Her retaliation cause of action, however, alleges other acts as adverse employment actions. Defendant argues only that this cause of action is barred because plaintiff cannot relitigate the issue of the wrongfulness of her termination, she was terminated for a legitimate reason, which plaintiff has not rebutted, and there was no causal link between plaintiff's request for accommodation and her termination. Defendant's motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication did not address whether any of the other acts alleged as adverse employment actions were sufficient to support the cause of action. A defendant may be granted summary judgment only if, through its motion, the defendant establishes that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ( 437c, subd. (c).) "'As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant must present facts to negate an essential element or to establish a defense. Only then will the burden shift to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable, material issue of fact.'" (MacKay v. Superior Court (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1435.) Defendant's motion did not present undisputed facts that entirely negated an essential element of plaintiff's seventh cause of action.