Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01167/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01167-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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 

Glenn Liou, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CyraCom International Incorporated, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-01167-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Glenn Liou moves for summary judgment on two facts. Doc. 39. 

Defendant has filed a response (Doc. 42), but Plaintiff has not filed a reply, and the time 

for replying has passed. Neither party requests oral argument. 

Plaintiff filed this case in June 2015, alleging that Defendant CyraCom, his former 

employer, discriminated against him because of his age in violation of the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Doc. 1. 

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on two facts: (1) he never expressed disagreement with 

Defendant’s “verbatim interpretation” policy, and (2) his “needs improvement” rating 

was reversed. Doc. 39. 

 A party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing 

the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] 

which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the 

evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is 

Case 2:15-cv-01167-DGC Document 47 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

 Defendant contends that Plaintiff expressed disagreement with the verbatim 

interpretation policy in an email dated May 14, 2014. Doc. 43-4. An affidavit submitted 

by Eduardo Alvarez, the Contact Center Manager at Cyracom in Phoenix and Plaintiff’s 

supervisor, supports Defendant’s contention. Doc. 43-2, ¶ 5. Mr. Alvarez also asserts in 

his affidavit that Plaintiff’s “needs improvement” rating was not rescinded. Id., ¶ 6. The 

affidavit by Mr. Alvarez creates an issue of fact regarding the matters addressed in 

Plaintiff’s motion, and the Court therefore will deny the motion. 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 39) is denied. 

 2. Defendant’s motion to strike (Doc. 46) is denied as moot. 

 3. The Court notes that Plaintiff may not file another motion for summary 

judgment without first obtaining leave of Court. See Case Management 

Order (Doc. 31), ¶ 7(b). 

 Dated this 24th day of February, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01167-DGC Document 47 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 2