Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_02-cv-00170/USCOURTS-azd-4_02-cv-00170-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

The Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Local

Rules of Civil Procedure, were amended effective December 1, 2004. The provisions of former Local

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mary Walkinshaw, 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

City of Tucson,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 02-170-TUC-FRZ

 ORDER

This action commenced with the filing of the original Complaint on April 1, 2002.

With leave of Court, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was filed December 3, 2002,

alleging four separate counts of employment discrimination.

Counts One and Two allege employment gender pay discrimination in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 ; Count Two alleges a violation of the

Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); and Count Four alleges retaliation in violation

of Title VII. 

Before the Court for consideration is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings

and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and

LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2, Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona.

1

Case 4:02-cv-00170-DCB Document 163 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 4
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 Rules 1.16 and 1.17 can be found at LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2, as amended.

- 2 -

Magistrate Judge James C. Carruth issued his Report and Recommendation, filed July 2,

2004, which includes a thorough factual and procedural history of this action and provides a

legal analysis and discussion of each matter at issue. 

Magistrate Judge Carruth recommends that the Court, after its independent review, deny

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Equal Pay Act and Title VII gender

discrimination claims and grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Title VII

retaliation claim.

Plaintiff and Defendant filed separate objections to the Report and Recommendation. No

responses were filed thereto.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation on the basis the Magistrate

Judge improperly concluded that Plaintiff's retaliation claim is premised on the failure to open

or create a new position and that she did not express her opposition to gender based wage

discrimination before she filed her first charge of discrimination.

Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation on the basis that the evidence

that the Magistrate Judge considered in making his determination that there were issues of

material questions of fact was vague and insubstantial and without foundation, and thus

inadmissible in court. 

After carefully considering the Report and Recommendation, all filings, including the

objections filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Court shall adopt in part, and reject in

part, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds that Plaintiff

has "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial,'" to substantiate all

claims as alleged in the First Amended Complaint. Porter v. California Dept. of Corrections,

419 F.3d 885, 891 (2005) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106

S.Ct. 2505 (1986).

As explained by the Ninth Circuit in an employment discrimination action:

Case 4:02-cv-00170-DCB Document 163 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

At the summary judgment stage, we do not focus on the admissibility of the

evidence's form. We instead focus on the admissibility of its contents. Block v. City

of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir.2001)("To survive summary

judgment, a party does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that

would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies the requirements of Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 56."); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 953 F.2d

478, 485 (9th Cir.1991)("the nonmoving party need not produce evidence in a form

that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment.")(internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036-377 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied sub nom. U.S.

Bancorp v. Fraser, --- U.S. ----, 124 S.Ct. 1663, 158 L.Ed.2d 358 (2004); see also Hughes v.

United States, 953 F.2d 531, 543 (9th Cir.1992); Fonseca Sysco Food Services of Arizona, Inc.,

374 F.3d 840, 846 (9th Cir. 2004).

Under the standards set forth by the Ninth Circuit in reviewing a motion for summary

judgment under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the substantive areas of law at

issue, the Court finds it inappropriate to grant judgment as a matter of law on the matters

presented at this time.

Based on the foregoing, 

The Court, having made an independent review of the record herein, orders as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carruth’s Report and Recommendation [Doc.

# 160] is hereby ACCEPTED in part and ADOPTED in part as the findings of fact and

conclusions of law by this Court as to Counts One, Two and Three of the First Amended

Complaint;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

is rejected as the findings of fact and conclusions of law as to Count Four of the First Amended

Complaint;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #

136] is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties shall file a proposed Joint Pretrial Order

on or before June 30, 2006;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is set for Pretrial Conference, Monday,

July 17, 2006, at 2:00 p.m.;

Case 4:02-cv-00170-DCB Document 163 Filed 04/03/06 Page 3 of 4
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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions in limine shall be filed no later than the date

of filing the proposed Joint Pretrial Order; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that responses to motions in limine are due ten (10) days

after the filing of the motion. No replies are permitted. Any hearing on motions in limine will

be set at the Pretrial Conference for later hearing;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial date in this matter will be set at the Pretrial

Conference.

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2006.

Case 4:02-cv-00170-DCB Document 163 Filed 04/03/06 Page 4 of 4