How have the courts treated the evidence in this case?

None of this evidence, individually or collectively, raises a rational inference of a pregnancy-discriminatory motive by the decision makers in this case. Stueland's suspicions of improper motives for her termination are based primarily on conjecture and speculation, which is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact. Although the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence remains subject to scrutiny. A plaintiff's subjective beliefs "do not create a genuine issue of fact." (King, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 433.) The "plaintiff's evidence must relate to the motivation of the decision makers to prove, by nonspeculative evidence, an actual causal link between prohibited motivation and termination." (Id. at pp. 433-434.) "[A] plaintiff's 'suspicions of improper motives . . . primarily based on conjecture and speculation' are not sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to withstand summary judgment." (Kerr v. Rose (1990) 216 Cal.App.3d 1551, 1564.)