Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00384/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00384-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Plutt, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Safeway, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0384-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. Doc. #43. On

July 25, 2006 the Court denied Safeway’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s age

discrimination claim, finding that “Plaintiff has presented specific and substantial evidence

that miscoding of time entries was an accepted practice within Safeway management.”

Doc. #41. Defendant argues that the Court should reconsider its decision because “regardless

of how other managers may or may not have handled miscoding issues, a reasonable jury

could not, as a matter of law, conclude that West or Durrett intentionally discriminated

against Plaintiff because of his age.” Doc. #43. 

Plaintiff presented evidence that miscoding was a common practice known to and

even promoted by Safeway managers. Construing this evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, as the

Court must do at the summary judgment stage, the Court concludes that a reasonably jury

could find that West and Durrett must have known of the miscoding practice. Defendant’s

motion to reconsider will therefore be denied. 

Case 2:05-cv-00384-DGC Document 44 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 2
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 -

IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. #43) is

denied.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00384-DGC Document 44 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 2