Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03313/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03313-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERRI RAHMANI,

Plaintiff,

v

NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC,

Defendant. /

No C-04-3313 VRW

ORDER

The motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Neiman

Marcus Group, Inc (NMG), Doc #26, is currently under submission

with the court. The court requests supplemental briefing in

connection with plaintiff Sherri Rahmani’s claim for employment

discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act

(FEHA), Cal Gov’t Code § 12940 et seq. Briefing should address the

following issues:

First, it is doubtful that the current record, as

briefed, adequately supports Rahmani’s assertion that she was

singled out for discipline in the areas of punctuality and

Case 3:04-cv-03313-VRW Document 49 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

attendance. For example, without scheduled start times for

employees who Rahmani claims were also regularly tardy or absent,

it is not sufficiently clear from the record that Rahmani was

singled out for discipline in this area. Accordingly, briefing

should address whether Rahmani was singled out for discipline in

the areas of punctuality and attendance. 

Second, the record is ambiguous whether similarly

situated, non-Middle Eastern sales associates in Rahmani’s

department were treated more favorably than Rahmani in terms of

meeting NMG’s Sales Productivity Standard (SPS). The court is

inclined to overrule NMG’s objection to the admissibility of SPS

tracking forms for Susan Kawashima, Mia Admana and Lynda Lovell. 

On the other hand, the court is inclined to sustain NMG’s objection

to paragraph 11 of Rahmani’s declaration, Doc #40, inasmuch as

Rahmani’s declaration fails to lay a foundation for her personal

knowledge of the ethnicity of co-workers who, according to Rahmani,

“missed their goals more often than I and yet were not terminated.” 

Accordingly, briefing should address whether there is any

additional evidence in the record to support the fourth element of

Rahmani’s prima facie case and, if not, whether this evidentiary

insufficiency could be cured by allowing Rahmani to submit a

supplemental declaration.

Finally, the record is unclear regarding precisely

whether and how NMG applied the $700,000/year exception to SPS in

the prospective manner contended by Rahmani. For example, if the

exception was applied prospectively, how did NMG calculate whether

a sales associate was “on track” or “trending to” sell the minimum

annual threshold? And even assuming that the exception was applied

Case 3:04-cv-03313-VRW Document 49 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to Rahmani in a manner different from her colleagues (Kawashima,

Admana and Lovell), is there not a legitimate explanation for this,

such as that Rahmani was already on probation before the exception

was implemented in September 2003? 

In addition to shedding light on portions of the current

record that bear on the foregoing issues, briefing should address

whether further discovery might be fruitful. Any proposal for

further discovery, however, shall describe precisely the scope of

such discovery and why it is reasonably likely to cure the abovedescribed deficiencies of the current record.

Rahmani’s brief shall be filed on or before April 7,

2006, and shall not exceed fifteen pages. NMG’s reply brief, if

any, shall be filed on or before April 14, 2006, and shall not

exceed ten pages. 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03313-VRW Document 49 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3