Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-45/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-0098 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT RE: TANDA BROWN

Defendant has filed a second motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Tanda Brown, which

is scheduled for a hearing on October 19, 2006. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court

determines the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the hearing.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary adjudication is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c).

In a motion for summary judgment, “[if] the moving party for summary judgment meets its

initial burden of identifying for the court those portions of the materials on file that it believes

demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, the burden of production then shifts so

that the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” See T.W. Elec. Service, Inc., v. Pac. Elec. Contractors

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 568 Filed 10/06/06 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

1

 Accordingly, the Court finds it unnecessary to address the parties’ arguments regarding

whether plaintiff has adequately alleged or litigated a claim concerning sexual orientation discrimination

with respect to the 2001 promotion.

2

Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)). In

judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility determinations

or weigh conflicting evidence, and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party. See T.W. Electric, 809 F.2d at 630-31 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)); Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1509 (9th Cir. 1991). The evidence

presented by the parties must be admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conclusory, speculative testimony

in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary

judgment. See Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). 

DISCUSSION

The background of this case is set forth in the Court’s summary judgment order filed on March

13, 2006. (Docket No. 367). In that order, the Court denied without prejudice defendant’s motion for

summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim concerning a promotion to senior manager in 2001 because

defendant’s papers did not address the merits of that claim. Defendant has filed a second motion for

summary judgment addressing that claim.

FedEx contends that plaintiff’s claim fails because she admits that an African-American man,

Sammy Lynch, was selected for the senior manager position. However, plaintiff contends that she was

discriminated against on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, not race. Plaintiff also argues that

she has met her prima facie case of discrimination because she has submitted evidence that she was

qualified for the senior manager position. The Court agrees that plaintiff has established a prima facie

case that she was denied the 2001 senior manager promotion on account of sex. Defendant is correct,

however, that plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case that she was discriminated against on account

of sexual orientation because she has not submitted any evidence about Lynch’s sexual orientation. See

Pejic v. Hughes Helicopters Inc., 840 F.2d 667, 672 (9th Cir. 1988).1

 

Once a plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 568 Filed 10/06/06 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

a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiff’s rejection. See Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58

F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995). FedEx ignores this burden-shifting framework by arguing that plaintiff

must demonstrate that she was more qualified than Lynch. Relatedly, FedEx incorrectly asserts that

plaintiff must show that FedEx’s “reasons” for promoting Lynch were pretextual. However, FedEx has

not articulated any legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for choosing Lynch over plaintiff, and

accordingly the burden has not shifted back to plaintiff to show pretext. See id. at 442. In addition,

FedEx’s argument that it did not discriminate against plaintiff with regard to the 2001 senior manager

position because, at other times and for other positions FedEx has hired women, is completely irrelevant.

For these reasons, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim

of sex discrimination regarding the 2001 promotion.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion

for summary judgment. (Docket No. 512).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 568 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 3