Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02042/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02042-10/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

GERALD DUMAGUIT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-02042 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON OCTOBER 12, 2007, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on legal 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. Cf. N.D.

Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain

their reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion, and GRANTS IN

PART Plaintiff’s motion. 

Case 3:06-cv-02042-JSW Document 65 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Specifically, the Court tentatively grants Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s

whistleblower claim. As to Plaintiff’s motion, the Court grants the motion with respect to

the affirmative defenses based on the lack of opposition by Defendant.

1. Defendant has submitted evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits. 

a. With respect to the objections raised at 3:25-4:4, are those objections pertaining

to exhibits submitted with the Dumaguit declaration? 

b. Is the Court correct that, with the exception of Exhibit Y to the Droyage

declaration, the only basis for the Defendant’s objections to the exhibits is that

Ms. Droyage cannot authenticate the exhibits? If not, why should the Court not

consider any other objections to those exhibits waived?

c. A number of exhibits submitted by Plaintiff are stamped with Bates numbers

with a “USA” prefix. Are those documents that have been produced by

Defendant either in this litigation or in the Siam litigation? Does Defendant truly

object to the authenticity of exhibits bearing this prefix, for example Dumaguit

Declaration Exhibit E2, which refers to the EEO restructuring plan?

2. Is Plaintiff asserting a hostile work environment claim? See Complaint ¶¶ 45-46; Opp.

Br. at 2-3, 12. If so, does Defendant contend its motion addresses that claim? If so,

where can the Court find argument on that point? 

3. How does the argument at page 13 of Plaintiff’s opposition, about the allegedly hostile

work environment, relate to the elements of Plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim?

4. What are the alleged adverse actions Plaintiff contends support his retaliation and

disparate treatment claims?

a. At page 13, footnote 2, of his motion Plaintiff contends that Defendant uses the

wrong test when he argues Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of

discrimination because Plaintiff cannot show similarly situated individuals were

treated differently? On what authority does Plaintiff rely to suggest that this is

the wrong test for a disparate treatment claim?

Case 3:06-cv-02042-JSW Document 65 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5. With respect to his claim of disability discrimination, is the Court correct in its

assumption that the “reasonable accommodation” Plaintiff requested was a work

assignment at the USPS where he would not be in contact with certain individuals?

a. Does Plaintiff also contend that Defendant should have provided him with an

indefinite leave of absence, as Defendant contends at page 9 of his motion?

6. Does Defendant agree that depression can be a disability, and is the Court correct that

Defendant contends Plaintiff is not disabled because his depression did not

“substantially limit” his ability to work? 

a. If so, how does Plaintiff respond to this argument?

b. What is Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant did not

process Plaintiff’s request for disability retirement?

7. How does the argument at pages 1-4 of Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in support of his motion

for summary adjudication, which addresses the issue of his disability, pertain to his

prima facie case of racial and national origin discrimination?

8. What is Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s argument that the United States Postal

Service is excluded from the definition of “agency,” by virtue of the definition of

“independent establishment” in 5 U.S.C. § 104?

9. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: October 11, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02042-JSW Document 65 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 3