Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00827/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00827-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON PATERSON, No. 2:05-CV-00827-MCE-JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF GENERAL SERVICES,

RAY ASBELL and INTER-CON

SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On March 8, 2007, this Court issued its Memorandum and Order

adjudicating the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”)

filed on behalf of Defendant Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. 

(“Inter-Con”). The bulk of Inter-Con’s Motion was premised on

its contention that Plaintiff failed to exhaust applicable

administrative remedies, and consequently should be precluded

from proceeding with this lawsuit. 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 81 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 4
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

The Court denied Plaintiff’s contention in that regard, and

granted Inter-Con’s Motion only with respect to Plaintiff’s

claims of sex discrimination as asserted in the First and Second

Causes of Action (along with Inter-Con’s uncontested request for

summary adjudication as to the Fifth Cause of Action, for

violation of California’s Whistle Blower Protection Act,

California Government Code § 8547.1). Plaintiff now moves for

reconsideration of the Court’s Order disposing of her claims

sounding in sex discrimination.

Inter-Con’s Motion sought summary adjudication of

Plaintiff’s First and Second Causes of Action solely on grounds

that Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies only with

respect to the assertion that she was terminated because of her

sex. The Court agreed, and continues to agree, that no evidence

has been presented that Plaintiff was terminated merely because

she was a woman. In addition, however, the Court determined that

while Plaintiff could pursue a sex discrimination claim premised

on alleged sexual harassment, the only potentially viable claim

in that regard stemmed from Co-Defendant Ray Asbell’s alleged

sexual demands on Plaintiff. As to that claim, the Court found

that Mr. Asbell’s settlement with Plaintiff precluded Plaintiff

from asserting claims against Inter-Con based on its vicarious

liability for Asbell’s purported misconduct. Consequently, the

Court dismissed the First and Second Causes of Action in their

entirety on grounds that Plaintiff had no cognizable claim for

sex discrimination against Inter-Con.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 81 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

3

In requesting reconsideration, Plaintiff correctly points 

out that Inter-Con may in fact be directly liable under both state

and federal law for Asbell’s alleged sexual harassment if it knew

or should have known of the harassment but failed to take

immediate and appropriate corrective action. Even though Inter-Con

was not Asbell’s employer (he was employed by former Co-Defendant

California Department of General Services), Inter-Con can be liable

for the sexual harassment of one of its employees by a non-employee

like Asbell. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(j)(1); Carter v. Cal.

Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 38 Cal. 4th 914, 918 (2006) (state law);

Freitag v. Ayers, 468 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2006) (federal law).

The issue of whether or not Inter-Con had knowledge of

Asbell’s conduct vis-a-vis Plaintiff was not raised by Inter-Con

in its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and consequently is

not subject to summary adjudication. Because Inter-Con’s

liability for sexual harassment does not hinge solely on its

derivative liability for Asbell’s harassment (a liability the

Court initially viewed as extinguished by Asbell’s own settlement

with Plaintiff), summary adjudication in Inter-Con’s favor as to

the First and Second Causes of Action was improper. The Court

accordingly GRANTS Inter-Con’s reconsideration request as to that 1

issue since reconsideration is appropriate, inter alia, where

error in the Court’s original decision has been demonstrated. 

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 81 Filed 06/08/07 Page 3 of 4
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

As a final matter, the Court notes that Inter-Con, in

opposition to Plaintiff’s reconsideration request, asks that it

be accorded leave to file a further motion for partial summary

judgment, in the event that Plaintiff is permitted to proceed

with sexual harassment claims, on grounds that it had no way of

knowing of Asbell’s harassment and thereby incurring liability.

Trial in this matter is presently set for October 17, 2007,

however, and the time for filing dispositive motions has long

since expired. As indicated above, Inter-Con did not previously

move for summary judgment on the issue of its knowledge of

Asbell’s purported harassment, and Inter-Con did not request that

the deadline for filing dispositive motions be postponed in order

to secure testimony and/or evidence for moving for summary

adjudication on that basis. Under the circumstances, Inter-Con

has not demonstrated good cause for deviating from the terms of

the Court’s scheduling orders, as it must pursuant to Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Inter-Con’s request for leave to submit another motion for

summary judgment is consequently denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 81 Filed 06/08/07 Page 4 of 4