Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02150/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02150-2/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 - 06cv2150

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2150 JM(JMA)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 

vs.

HOMETOWN BUFFET, INC.,

Defendant.

Defendant Hometown Buffet (“HTB”) moves for partial summary adjudication on the issue

of whether liability may be established against it for the rape of one of its employees by another

employee. Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) opposes

the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary adjudication is denied.

BACKGROUND

On September 29, 2006 the EEOC commenced this action alleging that HTB subjected

Charging Parties Yesica Owen, Eliza Navarette, and other similarly situated individuals, to sexual

harassment/hostile work environment on the basis of sex, female. (Compl. at p.1). The victim of the

rape, Julia Lopez, is included within the class of female employees. The EEOC alleges that HTB

engaged in unlawful employment practices since October 2002, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title

VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The sexual harassment included “unwanted physical touching and/or

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 47 Filed 08/06/08 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

- 2 - 06cv2150

sexually charged and/or suggestive speech and/or conduct.” (Compl. ¶10). The effect of the allegedly

wrongful conduct adversely affected the Charging Parties status as employees, because of their sex.

(Compl. ¶12).

The background facts concerning the rape are largely undisputed. In October 2002, Ms. Lopez

and Mr. Carzola were coworkers at the El Cajon Hometown Buffet restaurant. Neither had

supervisory authority over the other. Mr. Carzola worked in the bakery department. A few days prior

to October 10, 2002, Ms. Lopez took her apartment keys to work but discovered them missing when

she returned home that evening. In the early morning hours of October 10, 2002, Mr. Carzola entered

Ms. Lopez’ apartment, apparently with the keys he had taken from her a few days earlier. Mr.

Carzola, who had covered his face and attempted to disguise his voice, brandished a knife and

threatened to kill Ms. Lopez. He then dragged her into the living room, tied her hands, and again

threatened to kill her and her young son. Mr. Carzola then raped Ms. Lopez. Ms. Lopez testified at

trial that she recognized the knife from the restaurant bakery because it had a “B” and “A” carved into

the handle. On or about October 14, 2002 Mr. Carzola was arrested and subsequently found guilty

by jury verdict and sentenced to 42 years to life in prison.

HTB now moves for summary adjudication as to HTB’s liability for Ms. Lopez’ rape on the

ground that there are no genuine disputed issues. EEOC opposes the motion.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standards

Rule 56(d) permits the court to “determine what material facts are not genuinely at issue,” Rule

56(d)(1), and to render partial judgment “on liability alone, even if there is a genuine issue on the

amount of damages.” Rule 56(d)(2). A motion for summary judgment shall be granted where “there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.” FED.R.CIV. P. 56©); British Airways Bd. v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 1978),

cert. denied, 440 U.S. 981 (1979). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court

of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the file which it believes demonstrates the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). There

is “no express or implied requirement in Rule 56 that the moving party support its motion with

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 47 Filed 08/06/08 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 - 06cv2150

affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent’s claim.” Id. (emphasis in original). The

opposing party cannot rest on the mere allegations or denials of a pleading, but must “go beyond the

pleadings and by [the party’s] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324

(citation omitted). The opposing party also may not rely solely on conclusory allegations unsupported

by factual data. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The Motion

At the outset the court notes that several issues arise from the rape - - only one of which is

addressed in this order. As noted by EEOC, the major flaw with Defendant’s motion is that there is

no theory of liability asserted by which the rape may be imputed to HTB. As noted by the court

below, evidence of the rape, however, may have some bearing on EEOC’s hostile work environment

claim.

To determine whether a work environment is sufficiently hostile to violate Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1963, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq., the analysis requires a review of “all the

circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminating conduct; its severity; whether it is

physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offense utterance; and whether it unreasonably

interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc. 301 F.3d

958, 966 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 522 U.S. 268, 270 (2001)). In

Little, the plaintiff, as a part of her conditions of employment, was required to develop relationships

with potential clients which included after work hours activities. Little accepted a client’s invitation

to “discuss the account at a restaurant.” Id. at 964. After dinner she was raped by one of defendant’s

clients. When Little informed the Vice President of Operations she was told to try and put the incident

behind her. When she informed the company’s president, he stated that “he did not want to hear

anything about it.” Id. at 965. Little then had her salary cut by one third. The district court granted

summary judgment in favor of the employer on all claims, including the hostile work environment

claim. The Ninth Circuit reversed noting that the supervisors’ conduct “would have made a

reasonable woman feel that her work environment had been altered” because “out-of-office meetings

with potential clients was a required part of the job.” Id. The Ninth Circuit noted that the employer

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 47 Filed 08/06/08 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 - 06cv2150

effectively condoned the rape and that this evidence raised genuine issues of material fact concerning

the hostile work environment claim.

Here, in contrast to Little where plaintiff’s claim rested almost entirely upon circumstances

related to the rape and the employer’s reactions to the rape, the EEOC comes forward in this case with

substantial evidence of repeated improper touching, name calling and other incidents, viewed in the

best light to the EEOC, (Dwyer Decl.; Lopez Decl.), which could be construed as acts of sexual

harassment. Further, unlike Little, the parties fail to identify any evidence that HTB condoned the

rape or that HTB discouraged Ms. Lopez from remaining on the job or otherwise altered the work

environment. 

The court concludes that HTB’s motion for summary adjudication under Rule 56(d) misses

the mark. The claim asserted against HTB seeks to establish liability for creating a hostile work

environment, and not a claim for rape. The evidentiary value of the rape, if any, as it applies in the

present case is a different issue. That is, whether evidence of the rape is admissible by either party

is an issue better addressed at the time of the hearing on motions in limine. Consequently, the court

denies the motion.

In sum, the court denies the motion for partial summary adjudication.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:06-cv-02150-MMA-JMA Document 47 Filed 08/06/08 Page 4 of 4