Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00546/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00546-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 330
Nature of Suit: Federal Employers' Liability
Cause of Action: 05:7703 Discrimination - Review of Agency Act

---

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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-546-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the issue of the admissibility of evidence at trial of

similarly-situated co-workers. The parties argued this issue to the Court during the

November 24, 2008, pre-trial conference.

 Generally, to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must

show that "(1) [he] belongs to a protected class; (2) [he] was performing according to [his]

employer's legitimate expectations; (3) [he] suffered an adverse employment action, and (4)

other employees with qualifications similar to [his] own were treated more favorably."

Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc. 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir. 1998); Vasquez v. County of Los

Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2004). Evidence of the treatment of other similar employees

is relevant to whether Plaintiff’s national origin was either the sole reason or a motivating

factor for the adverse employment action.

Plaintiff Daniel Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) asserts that Steven Lawrence (“Lawrence”),

Case 4:05-cv-00546-CKJ Document 191 Filed 11/26/08 Page 1 of 3
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

There is not a comparable Ninth Circuit case.

- 2 -

with similar qualifications as Rodriguez, was treated more favorably and evidence of his

retention should be admitted as a comparative employee. Lawrence was a trainee in

Rodriguez’ class, started his training at the Nogales station in March 2004 (when Rodriguez

started his training). However, Lawrence worked a different shift than Rodriguez and was

not rated by the same journeymen as Rodriguez. Defendant asserts that evidence of the

retention of Leo Cruz Mendez (“Mendez”) should be admitted as a comparative employee.

Although Mendez started a month or two before Rodriguez, he was trained at the same time

as Rodriguez, worked on the same shift as Rodriguez, and was rated by the same

journeymen.

Employees are considered similarly situated if their jobs and conduct are similar.

Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003) (among other

considerations, court looked to whether problematic conduct was of comparable

seriousness). The Seventh Circuit has found that a “demonstration of substantial similarity

would also require a showing [of] a common supervisor[.]” Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,

219 F.3d 612, 618 (7th Cir. 2000).1

 However, the Ninth Circuit has found that “whether two

employees are similarly situated is ordinarily a question of fact.” Beck v. United Food and

Commercial Workers, 506 F.3d 874, 885 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2007). The similarities of both

Lawrence and Mendez to Rodriguez are sufficient to present a question of fact appropriate

for consideration by the jury. The Court finds that the evidence regarding Lawrence and

Mendez as comparable employees is relevant.

Rodriguez asserts, however, that the admission of evidence of the treatment of

Mendez would violate Fed.R.Evid. 404. “[O]ther acts are admissible under Rule 404(b) in

the employment discrimination context for the proper purpose of establishing or negating

discriminatory intent.” Ansell v. Green Acres Contracting Co., Inc., 347 F.3d 515, 521 (3rd

Cir. 2003); see also L’Etoile v. New England Finish Systems, Inc., 575 F.Supp.2d 331, 334

(D.N.H. 2008) (there is substantial precedent that recognizes that evidence of “employer’s

Case 4:05-cv-00546-CKJ Document 191 Filed 11/26/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

treatment of other employees of the same protected class as the plaintiff is admissible, under

[Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)] on the question of whether the employer acted with the prohibited

discriminatory intent[;]” collecting cases). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED evidence regarding Lawrence and Mendez as

comparable employees is ADMISSIBLE at trial.

DATED this 26th day of November, 2008.

Case 4:05-cv-00546-CKJ Document 191 Filed 11/26/08 Page 3 of 3