Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-03097/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-03097-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

LOUISE E. BURTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRANCIS J. HARVEY, Secretary of the

Army,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-95-3097 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 44)

Before the Court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed November 17,

2006 and noticed for hearing December 22, 2006. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a),

plaintiff was required to file an opposition no later than December 1, 2006. See Civil L.R. 7-

3(a) (requiring that opposition be “filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date”). To

date, no opposition has been filed. On December 11, 2006, the Court issued an order

taking the motion under submission and vacating the hearing date. The Court now rules as

follows:

Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her sex

and race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (See Compl. ¶¶ 5-6.) 

Having reviewed the papers filed in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment,

the Court is satisfied that defendant has demonstrated “there is no genuine issue as to any

Case 3:95-cv-03097-MMC Document 51 Filed 12/13/06 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

material fact and that [he] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). In particular, for the reasons set forth in defendant’s motion, there is no evidence to

support a finding that any conduct on the part of plaintiff’s former supervisor was, either in

whole or in part, motivated by plaintiff’s sex or race. See, e.g., Oncale v. Sundowner

Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998) (holding Title VII prohibits harassment

“because of” sex); Manatt v. Bank of America, 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding

plaintiff’s prima facie case of racial harassment requires showing that conduct was

“because of” race).

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:95-cv-03097-MMC Document 51 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2