Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05531/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05531-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVON JONES, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-05531 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2007 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Case 3:03-cv-05531-JSW Document 191 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 2
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

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. The caption of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint lists a hostile work environment

claim. However, there is no such claim enumerated in the complaint itself. Does

Plaintiff intend to maintain a claim for hostile work environment in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)(2)? If so, on what basis?

2. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must demonstrate that

he was qualified for the available position. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S.

502, 506 (1993). On what basis in the record does Plaintiff contend that he was

qualified for promotion to A level mechanic? 

3. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must demonstrate that

similarly situated individuals not in the protected class were treated more favorably. St.

Mary’s Honor, 509 U.S. at 506. How does Plaintiff maintain that he was treated

differently from similarly-situated individuals not his protected class? How can the

HVAC department be set aside as a representative sample?

4. Should Plaintiff be able to establish a prima facie case, the burden would shift to Bayer

to assert a legitimate business reason not to promote him. Because Bayer presents

evidence demonstrating such a reason, Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that

Defendant’s articulated reason is pretextual. Plaintiff may do so “either [1] directly by

persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or

[2] indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of

credence.” Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1437 (9th Cir. 1990)

(internal cites and quotations omitted). What specific evidence in the record

demonstrates that Bayer’s articulated reason is pretextual?

5. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05531-JSW Document 191 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2