Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02993/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02993-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BIJU PLATHOTTAM, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-02993 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 20, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The

parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-02993-JSW Document 63 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The parties shall each have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

1. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must

demonstrate that (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) he applied for

and was qualified for an available position; (3) he suffered an adverse

employment decision; and (4) similarly situated individuals not in the protected

class were treated more favorably. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S.

502, 506 (1993). 

a. Plaintiff does not contest the numerous disciplinary citations in

the record. What evidence in the record has Plaintiff proffered to

support the contention that he was qualified for the position? 

b. If Caucasians were allegedly subject to discrimination, and

Plaintiff was terminated in order to assuage that perception, what

evidence in the record supports the necessary prima facie element

that other employees not in Plaintiff’s protected class were treated

more favorably?

2. “[S]tatements by nondecisionmakers, nor statements by decisionmakers

unrelated to the decisional process itself, [cannot alone] suffice to satisfy the

plaintiff’s burden in this regard.” McGinest v. GTE Service Corp., 360 F.3d

1103, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004), citing Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228,

277 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring). How do the comments allegedly made

by Leelanivas bear on the issue of discrimination in termination if there is no

evidence that Leelanivas acted as Plaintiff’s supervisor or was involved in the

decision to terminate him? 

3. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Plaintiff must demonstrate that 

(1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) Juniper subjected him to an adverse

employment action; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity

and the adverse employment action. Manatt v. Bank of America, 339 F.3d 792,

800 (9th Cir. 2003). Considering there never was an investigation or lawsuit in

which Plaintiff refused to lie, what is the protected activity and what is the causal

nexus between any such activity and his termination?

4. If the Court grants summary judgment, is there any reason to address counsel for

Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw?

5. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02993-JSW Document 63 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2