Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03723/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03723-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

CLARK WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

NO. C03-3723 TEH 

 NO. C05-2800 TEH

VERDICT FORM

1. Did Plaintiff Walker prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his race was

a motivating factor in defendant Richter’s decision not to promote him to the position of

Assistant Fire Chief in 2003?

Answer: YES _____ NO ____

2. Did Plaintiff Walker prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his

protected activity was a motivating factor in defendant Richter’s decision not to promote him

to the position of Assistant Fire Chief in 2003?

Answer: YES _____ NO ____

If your answers to questions 1 and 2 are both “no,” proceed to question 5. If your

answer to either question is “yes,” go on to question 3.

Case 3:03-cv-03723-TEH Document 276 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

3. Have defendants proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant

Richter’s decision not to promote Plaintiff to the position of Assistant Fire Chief in 2003 was

also motivated by a lawful reason?

Answer: YES _____ NO ____

If your answer to question 3 is “no,” proceed to question 5. If the answer to question

3 is “yes,” answer question 4.

4. Have defendants proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant

Richter would have made the same decision not to promote Plaintiff Walker for a lawful

reason, regardless of his race and/or protected activity?

Answer: YES _____ NO ____

5. Did Plaintiff Walker prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his race was

a motivating factor in the decisions by Keith Richter and/or Richard Grace to issue a Letter

of Reprimand to him in February 2005?

Answer:

As to Keith Richter: YES _____ NO ____

As to Richard Grace: YES _____ NO ____

6. Did Plaintiff Walker prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his

protected activity was a motivating factor in the decisions by Keith Richter and/or Richard

Grace to issue a Letter of Reprimand to him in February 2005?

Answer:

As to Keith Richter: YES _____ NO ____

As to Richard Grace: YES _____ NO ____

Case 3:03-cv-03723-TEH Document 276 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

If your answer to both questions 5 and 6 is “no” for both Defendants, proceed to

question 9. If your answer to questions 5 and/or 6 is “yes” for either or both Defendants, go

on to question 7.

7. Have Defendants proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the decision to

issue a Letter of Reprimand to the Plaintiff was also motivated by a lawful reason?

Answer:

As to Keith Richter: YES _____ NO ____

As to Richard Grace: YES _____ NO ____

If your answer to question 7 is “no” for both Defendants, proceed to question 9. If the

answer to question 7 is “yes” as to either or both Defendants, answer question 8.

8. Have Defendants proved by a preponderance of the evidence that they would

have made the same decision to issue a Letter of Reprimand to Plaintiff Walker for a lawful

reason, regardless of his race or protected activity?

Answer:

As to Keith Richter: YES _____ NO ____

As to Richard Grace: YES _____ NO ____

9. Did Plaintiff Walker prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered

any adverse employment actions by defendant Richter other than the failure to promote or the

reprimand, since August of 2002? 

Answer: 

Confined Space Rescue YES _____ NO _____

Training Center YES _____ NO _____

Case 3:03-cv-03723-TEH Document 276 Filed 01/23/07 Page 3 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

4

If your answer to both parts of question 9 is “no,” proceed to question 13. If your

answer to either part of question 9 is “yes,” go on to question 10.

10. Did Plaintiff Walker prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his

protected activity was a motivating factor in the decisions by defendant Richter to take the

adverse action(s) referred to in question 9?

Answer: 

Confined Space Rescue YES _____ NO _____

Training Center YES _____ NO _____

If your answer to both parts of question 10 is “no,” proceed to question 13. If your

answer to either part of question 10 is “yes,” go on to question 11.

11. Have Defendants proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the adverse

action(s) was also motivated by a lawful reason?

Answer: 

Confined Space Rescue YES _____ NO _____

Training Center YES _____ NO _____

If your answer to both parts of question 11 is “no,” proceed to question 13. If the

answer to either part of question 11 is “yes,” answer question 12.

12. Have Defendants proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Richter would

have taken the adverse action(s) against Plaintiff for a lawful reason, regardless of his

protected activity?

Answer:

Confined Space Rescue YES _____ NO _____

Training Center YES _____ NO _____

Case 3:03-cv-03723-TEH Document 276 Filed 01/23/07 Page 4 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

5

13. Did Plaintiff Walker prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered

actual damages or injury caused by the decision to issue him a written Letter of Reprimand in

2005, and/or by the decision to hire others and not promote him to the position of Assistant

Fire Chief in 2003, and/or by any other adverse actions you may have found above?

As to the Assistant Fire Chief promotion in 2003: YES _____NO ____

As to the Letter of Reprimand: YES _____ NO ____

As to other adverse actions: YES _____ NO ____

14. If so, what amount of damages, if any, do you award to Plaintiff Walker?

a. Past economic loss: $

_____________________

b. Present value of future economic

loss:

$ 

_____________________

c. Non-economic damages: $

_____________________

Total (a+b+c): $

_____________________

15. Has plaintiff proved that he is entitled to punitive damages from defendant Keith

Richter or Richard Grace, or both of them?

Answer:

As to Keith Richter: YES _____ NO ____

As to Richard Grace: YES _____ NO ____

//

//

//

Case 3:03-cv-03723-TEH Document 276 Filed 01/23/07 Page 5 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

6

If you answered question 15 “yes,” as to either or both Defendants, please state the

amount of punitive damages you award Plaintiff against the Defendant(s) as to whom you

answered Question 15 “yes.”

Keith Richter: $____________________.

Richard Grace: $____________________.

DATED: ____________________ ______________________________

 JURY FOREPERSON 

Case 3:03-cv-03723-TEH Document 276 Filed 01/23/07 Page 6 of 6