Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01559/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01559-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cinnamon Rose Prowell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Kennedy Restaurant & Bar Management,

Inc; and Seven Vines, Inc., dba Vine

Tavern & Eatery, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1559-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s May 3, 2006

order denying in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. #51; see Doc. #49.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.

In its May 3 order, the Court noted that Defendants did not address Plaintiff’s

argument that her reassignment to less desirable shifts constitutes a tangible employment

action. Doc. #49 at 3 n.2. Defendants draw the Court’s attention to the section of their reply

brief that addressed whether Defendants acted reasonably in investigating Plaintiff’s

complaint of harassment. Doc. #51 at 1 (citing Doc. #48 at 7). Defendants point out that

they argued that Plaintiff was compensated more in the pay period following her complaint

than in previous pay periods. Id. (citing Docs. ##48 at 7, 44 Ex. L).

Defendants, however, made this argument to show that Plaintiff’s reassignment was

a reasonable response to her complaint of harassment; Defendants never argued that the

Case 2:04-cv-01559-DGC Document 52 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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 -

reassignment does not constitute a tangible employment action. Rather, Defendants focused

on Plaintiff’s termination, contending that it was not a tangible employment action within the

meaning of Faragher and Ellerth. See Docs. ##43 at 7, 48 at 4.

Moreover, the evidence, construed in Plaintiff’s favor, shows that Plaintiff was

reassigned to less desirable shifts. Plaintiff’s paycheck dated October 25, 2002 – the date she

was reassigned – shows that she earned about $8.52 per hour. Doc. #44 Ex. L. Plaintiff’s

next (and last) paycheck shows that she earned about $5.69 per hour. Id.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. #51) is denied.

DATED this 11th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01559-DGC Document 52 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2