Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01286/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01286-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY L. HARRIS,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, U.S.

Postmaster General,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1286 BZ

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Having reviewed the extensive record submitted by both

sides and following oral argument, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The court

finds that there are too many disputed issues of material

facts and too many questions about the reliability of the

record to warrant the granting of summary judgment. For

example, the record is confused about whether the Human

Resources department had an overtime budget during the

relevant time; and if it did, how and to whom any of those

overtime funds were distributed; whether plaintiff’s

Case 3:05-cv-01286-BZ Document 97 Filed 05/11/06 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

2

department follows a practice or policy of offering extra

hours first to workers outside of that department to find nonovertime workers before incurring overtime and assigning those

extra hours to Training and Development employees; whether Mr.

Ward was working overtime when he was assigned to Training and

Development; whether Human Resources or Mr. Ward’s department,

Transportation and Networks (“Transportation”) paid his salary

while he was training; whether Mr. Ward was being paid

overtime by his department, Transportation, so he could work

on a non-overtime basis in plaintiff’s department; and whether

plaintiff’s overtime eligibility is subject to rules which

govern Motor Vehicle Craft employees throughout defendant’s

facility or is subject to the overtime budget of his

department. 

 That said, the court is not satisfied that the best way

of addressing these issues is by having a full trial on the

merits. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 16, 42(b), 43(e) and 56(d), IT IS ORDERED as

follows:

1. The trial presently scheduled for June 12, 2006 is

VACATED.

2. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for June 12, 2006

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building,

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.

3. The hearing will be limited to the resolution of the

following issues:

When in 2003 defendant allowed Mr. Ward to work in

plaintiff’s department and when defendant did not allow

Case 3:05-cv-01286-BZ Document 97 Filed 05/11/06 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

plaintiff to sign the Transportation department’s overtime

lists and did not give plaintiff overtime work even when

plaintiff did sign those lists, as plaintiff claims:

a. Did plaintiff experience an adverse employment

action; and 

b. Did defendant have legitimate non-retaliatory

reasons for denying plaintiff overtime work in 2003?

Once the court resolves these issues, the court will

schedule further trial proceedings as necessary. 

4. For purposes of the evidentiary hearing only, the

burden of presenting evidence will be placed on defendant

initially. Plaintiff’s ultimate burden of persuading the

court by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant

retaliated against him is unchanged.

5. By May 17, 2006 defendant shall comply with all

aspects of this court’s pretrial scheduling order dated

September 23, 2005 and order amending the scheduling order

dated February 2, 2006, insofar as the issues discussed in

paragraph 3 are concerned.

6. If plaintiff wishes to lodge additional exhibits with

respect to the issues discussed in paragraph 3, he may do so

by May 22, 2006. 

7. The pretrial conference presently scheduled for June

6, 2006 is VACATED and in its stead, a pre-hearing conference

is scheduled for June 6, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom G,

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-01286-BZ Document 97 Filed 05/11/06 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

15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, California 94102.

Dated: May 11, 2006

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\HARRIS\DENY.SUM.JUDGMT.ORD.2.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01286-BZ Document 97 Filed 05/11/06 Page 4 of 4