Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01984/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01984-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Billy Taylor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Pool Corporation ( of Delaware) a/k/a

SCP Pool Corporation, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1984 PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court held a discovery conference call with the parties on November 5, 2008.

The first issue addressed was whether Plaintiff is entitled to inquire about prior allegations

of sexual harassment brought against Terry Speth, a supervisor employed by Defendant and

who allegedly was involved in the rescission to Plaintiff’s employment offer. 

Plaintiff claims that an offer of employment extended by Defendant was withdrawn

because Plaintiff is African American. Although his complaint also contains a retaliation

claim, it is based on the same allegation of race discrimination. Plaintiff claims that because

he complained about the withdrawal of his offer, Defendant retaliated by failing to

investigate whether the withdrawal was permissible. Without addressing whether or not such

circumstances support a retaliation claim, the Court notes that the retaliation claim, like the

discrimination claim, is based on race. 

The Court concludes that prior allegations of sexual harassment against Terry Speth

are not relevant to the question of whether Plaintiff was discriminated or retaliated against

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 73 Filed 11/07/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

on the basis of his race. See Crowe v. Wiltell Communications Sys., 103 F.3d 897, 900 (9th

Cir. 1996) (“Crowe alleged that the defendants discriminated against her based on her

gender. Since evidence of sexual orientation and racial discrimination did not relate directly

to any issue at trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this

evidence.”); Rauh v. Coine, 744 F.Supp. 1181. 1183 (D.D.C. 1990) (evidence of

discrimination against black employees had “little probative value” to a sex discrimination

claim and “would have a very great potential for prejudice”). 

Plaintiff also has asked the Court to extend the discovery period in this case for 60

days. The discovery deadline established in the Court’s Case Management Order (Dkt. #17)

was October 31, 2008. In an order granting a motion filed by Plaintiff under Rule 56(f), the

Court advised Plaintiff that he needs to diligently pursue discovery and that the Court would

not extend the discovery deadline absent truly extraordinary circumstances. Dkt. #51.

Because the deadline in this case has not previously been extended, Plaintiff is representing

himself pro se, and previous problems have arisen with respect to Plaintiff’s attempts to

complete depositions (Dkt. #64), the Court concludes that circumstances exist for one

extension of the discovery deadline. The deadline shall be extended to December 19, 2008.

Additional extensions will not be granted.

Plaintiff asserted during the conference call that he should be permitted to conduct

discovery concerning salaries paid to various employees of Defendant. He asserts that there

is a disparity between salaries paid white employees and those paid black employees, and

that this disparity would be probative of his claim of race discrimination. The Court

concludes that Plaintiff will be permitted to conduct written discovery of salaries paid to

other credit managers and to team leaders who reported to those credit managers, but not

with respect to any other positions.

Finally, Plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider its previous rulings which denied him

the right to obtain personnel files with respect to particular individuals. The Court previously

required Defendant to produce some information short of full personnel files. The Court will

not revisit this decision.

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 73 Filed 11/07/08 Page 2 of 3
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 ORDERED that the discovery deadline shall be extended to

December 19, 2008. Additional extensions will not be granted.

DATED this 6th day of November, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 73 Filed 11/07/08 Page 3 of 3