Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04775/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04775-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

GREGORY GRANT CHAPMAN, SR.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

U.S. EEOC/ADA and SAN FRANCISCO 

NEWSPAPER AGENCY (THE 

CHRONICLE) AND TEAMSTERS 

LOCAL 853 (FORMERLY 921), 

Defendants. 

Case No. C07-04775-SBA 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SAN 

FRANCISCO CHRONICLE’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Defendant SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE’S motion for summary judgment came on for 

hearing before this Court on January 12, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. The Court, having considered all 

supporting and opposition papers, and the exhibits and declarations filed therewith, and GOOD 

CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN HEREBY ORDERS: 

The Court grants Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s evidence in support of his Opposition 

motion because Plaintiff’s documents were unauthenticated and without any sequential page 

numbers or discernible order. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(e); Fed. R. Evid. 602, 701, 901, 902; Orr v. 

Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 777-78 (9th Cir. 2002); Citizens for a Better Forestry v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Agric., 341 F. 3d 961, 972 fn. 7 (9th Cir. 2003).

Summary judgment is appropriate where, as here, there is no genuine dispute as to any 

Case 4:07-cv-04775-SBA Document 80 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1. 

material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

Summary judgment is required if the nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish 

the existence of an element that is essential to his case and upon which he will bear the burden of 

proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). Where the moving party 

meets its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, the 

nonmoving party must “produce specific facts showing that there remains a genuine factual issue for 

trial and evidence significantly probative as to any [material] fact claimed to be disputed.” Steckl v. 

Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s sex, race and color discrimination 

claims because of res judicata. FTC v. Garvey, 383 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, 

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s sex, race and color discrimination claims 

because of the applicable statute of limitations. Garcia v. Los Banos Unified Sch. Dist., 418 F. Supp. 

2d 1194, 1216 (E.D. Cal. 2006). 

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s race and color discrimination 

claims because he failed to exhaust them. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47, 39 L. 

Ed.2d 147, 94 S.Ct. 1011 (1974); Okoli v. Lockheed Technical Operations Co., 36 Cal. App. 4th 

1607, 1614 (1995). 

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s failure to promote claim because of 

res judicata and failure to exhaust. FTC v. Garvey, 383 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2004); Alexander v. 

Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47, 39 L. Ed.2d 147, 94 S.Ct. 1011 (1974); Okoli v. Lockheed 

Technical Operations Co., 36 Cal. App. 4th 1607, 1614 (1995). 

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim because of 

res judicata and failure to exhaust. FTC v. Garvey, 383 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2004); Alexander v. 

Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47, 39 L. Ed.2d 147, 94 S.Ct. 1011 (1974); Okoli v. Lockheed 

Technical Operations Co., 36 Cal. App. 4th 1607, 1614 (1995). 

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim 

because Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie claim for wrongful termination. Specifically, 

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that other similarly situated employees who were not members of the 

Case 4:07-cv-04775-SBA Document 80 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2. 

protected class were treated more favorably, as Plaintiff did not identify any similarly situated 

employees who were not members of a protected class. 

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim 

because Defendant is not obligated to create a new job under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

and because Plaintiff’s own medical records demonstrate that he cannot perform all of the duties of 

the driver position he held during his employment. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff claims 

Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate him, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on 

this claim as he was offered reasonable accommodation and Defendant engaged in good faith in the 

interactive process. 

To the extent Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint purports to raise any state law cause of 

action derived from his work-related injury, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on such 

claim because it would be barred by Section 301 preemption or the California Workers’ 

Compensation Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 3602 et seq. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers 

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23 (1983); Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 404 

(1988); IBEW v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851, 857-59 (1987); Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc., 

92 Cal. App. 4th 710, 720 (2001). 

It is unclear whether Plaintiff intends to claim that he was a qualified injured worker and was 

denied certain benefits related to that status. To the extent it is Plaintiff’s intention to raise such a 

claim, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on that claim because it would be barred by 

Section 301 preemption or the California Workers’ Compensation Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 3602 et 

seq. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 23 (1983); Lingle v. 

Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 404 (1988); IBEW v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851, 857-59 

(1987); Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc., 92 Cal. App. 4th 710, 720 (2001). 

This Court, finding no issues of material fact, holds that judgment shall be entered in its 

entirety for Defendant and against Plaintiff Gregory Grant Chapman, Sr. 

/// 

/// 

Case 4:07-cv-04775-SBA Document 80 Filed 02/11/10 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant The San Francisco Chronicle’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 

Dated: 2/8/10 __________________________________ 

 HONORABLE SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG 

 

 

Case 4:07-cv-04775-SBA Document 80 Filed 02/11/10 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHAPMAN et al, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SF CHRONICLE et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV07-04775 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on February 11, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said 

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Gregory Grant Chapman 

870 River Rush Drive 

Sugar Hill, GA 30518 

Dated: February 11, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 

Case 4:07-cv-04775-SBA Document 80 Filed 02/11/10 Page 5 of 5