Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01726/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01726-11/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Ronald L. Pronechen,

Plaintiff,

v.

Secretary of U.S.

Department of Homeland

Security,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ED-CV 06-1726 LEW

ORDER Re: Defendant’s

Motion for Summary

Judgment

[88]

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment was

originally set for hearing on March 5, 2010. Having

taken the matter under submission on March 1, 2010, and 

having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this

motion, the Court NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

The Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings,

affidavits, and other supporting papers demonstrate

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 110 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 8
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

that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and

the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When making this

determination, the Court must view the record in the

light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). A

“genuine” dispute is one that is supported by evidence

sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find in favor

of the nonmoving party. Id. at 247-48.

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, a

federal employee who wants to assert an age

discrimination claim has two options. First, the

complainant can give the EEOC notice of the alleged act

within 180 days, and then give notice of suit at least

30 days prior to the filing of the suit. 29 U.S.C. § 

633a(c),(d); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.201. Or, second, the

complainant may pursue the complaint administratively

before the EEOC and appeal any loss in federal court. 

29 U.S.C. § 633a(b),(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407.

If an aggrieved person desires to follow the second

route, he or she must “initiate contact with a

counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter to

be discriminatory or, in the case of personnel action,

within 45 days of the effective date of the action.” 

29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1).

The 45 day time limit shall be extended “when the

individual shows that he or she was not notified of the

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 110 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 8
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

time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, that

he or she did not know and reasonably should not have

been known that the discriminatory matter or personnel

action occurred.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2). 

Furthermore, if a plaintiff can show “that despite

due diligence he or she was prevented by the

circumstances beyond his or her control from contacting

the counselor within the time limits, or for other

reasons considered sufficient by the agency or the

Commission.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2). 

Under federal law, an employment discrimination

claim accrues “upon awareness of the actual injury,

i.e., the adverse employment action, and not when the

plaintiff suspects a legal wrong.” Lukovsky v. City

and County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th

Cir. 2008). Two doctrines “may apply to extend the

limitations period.” Id. at 1051. The two doctrines

are equitable tolling and equitable estoppel. See id. 

“If a reasonable plaintiff would not have known of

the existence of a possible claim within the

limitations period, then equitable tolling will serve

to extend the statute of limitations for filing suit

until the plaintiff can gather what information he

needs.” Johnson v. Henderson, 314 F.3d 409, 414 (9th

Cir. 2002). 

“Equitable estoppel focuses primarily on the

actions taken by the defendant in preventing a

plaintiff from filing suit, whereas equitable tolling

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 110 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 8
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

focuses on the plaintiff’s excusable ignorance of the

limitations period and on lack of prejudice to the

defendant.” Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d

1170,1176 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Court hereby finds that Plaintiff, by filing a

complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, on March 30, 2004, failed to file a

complaint within the required 45 day time period for

any of the seven positions, specifically the positions

listed under Announcements, 0390224, 0390874, 0392144,

0392154, 0392174, 0392184, and 0392644. However, the

Court finds a triable issue of material fact, as to

whether Plaintiff’s claims should be equitably tolled

as to all seven positions. 

Specifically, for all seven positions, a material

issue of fact exists, as to whether Plaintiff had

notice of the 45 day time limit. In turn, a material

issue of fact exists, as to whether the limitations

period for the filing of the complaint should be

extended pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(2). 

Furthermore, for all seven positions, a material issue

of fact exists, as to whether Plaintiff had notice of

the possibility of the alleged age discrimination. In

turn, a material issue of fact exists, as to whether

the limitations period for filing of the complaint

should be equitably tolled pursuant to Lukovsky v. City

and County of San Francisco. See Lukovsky, 535 F.3d at

1051. 

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 110 Filed 03/25/10 Page 4 of 8
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

5

To establish a prima facie case of age

discrimination under the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act, Plaintiff must meet the following

factors: first, Plaintiff must show that he is within

the protected class of forty to seventy years old;

second, Plaintiff must show that he applied for a

position, for which, he was qualified; third, Plaintiff

must show that a younger person with similar

qualifications received the position. Cotton v. City

of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1987).

“Establishing a prima facie case raises an

inference of discrimination,” but this inference can be

rebutted by Defendant demonstrating a “legitimate,

nondiscriminatory” reason for its decision. Id. If

Defendant raises a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory”

reason, Plaintiff “must come forward with evidence”

that Defendant’s reason is a “pretext” to hide

discrimination. Id. 

The Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment as to the position listed under

Announcement 0392144. Announcement 0392144 was for a

supervisory position in Phoenix, Arizona. For the

position listed under Announcement 0392144, a material

issue of fact exists, as to whether Defendant’s alleged

“legitimate, nondiscriminatory” reason for not hiring

Plaintiff was pretextual. 

Additionally, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Judgment as to the position listed under

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 110 Filed 03/25/10 Page 5 of 8
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

6

Announcement 0392184. Announcement 0392184 was for a

Physical Security Specialist, and it was a GS 7/9/11/12

position. Announcement 0392184 was for two vacancies

located in San Diego, California. For the position

listed under Announcement 0392184, a material issue of

fact exists, as to whether Defendant’s alleged

“legitimate, nondiscriminatory” reason for not hiring

Plaintiff was pretextual. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff has failed

to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination

for the following five positions because Plaintiff

cannot show that a younger person with similar

qualifications received the position. Therefore, the

Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as

to the following positions:

(1) The Court GRANTS summary judgment as to the

position listed under Announcement 0390224. 

Announcement 0390224 was listed as a Grade 13 position

located in Phoenix, Arizona. The position listed under

Announcement 0390224 was not filled. Therefore,

Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case.

(2) The Court GRANTS summary judgment as to the

position listed under Announcement 0390874. 

Announcement 0390874 was for a Physical Security

Specialist at the GS-12 position. The position listed

under Announcement 0390874 was not filled. Therefore,

Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case. 

(3) The Court GRANTS summary judgment as to the

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 110 Filed 03/25/10 Page 6 of 8
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

7

position listed under Announcement 0392154. 

Announcement 0392154 was for a Physical Security

Specialist at the GS-12 position. Announcement 0392154

was for a vacancy in Santa Clara County. The position

listed under Announcement 0392154 was not filled. 

Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima

facie case. 

(4) The Court GRANTS summary judgment as to the

position listed under Announcement 0392174. 

Announcement 0392174 was for a Physical Security

Specialist at the GS-12 position. Announcement 0392174

was for a position in Los Angeles, California. The

position listed under Announcement 0392174 was not

filled. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish a

prima facie case. 

(5) The Court GRANTS summary judgment as to the

position listed under Announcement 0392644. 

Announcement 0392644 was for a Physical Security

Specialist. Announcement 0392644 was for a position in

Fresno, California. The position listed under

Announcement 0392644 was not filled. Therefore,

Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 110 Filed 03/25/10 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Thus, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court

GRANTS summary judgment as to Announcements 0390224,

0390874, 0392154, 0392174, and 0392644. The Court

DENIES summary judgment as to Announcements 0392144 and

0392184. 

DATED: March 24, 2010

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 

 Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 110 Filed 03/25/10 Page 8 of 8