Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02356/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02356-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANFORD S. WADLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02356-JCS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE FOR RECONSIDERATION 

AND GRANTING ON 

RECONSIDERATION MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 

ON MITIGATION DEFENSE

Re: Dkt. No. 219

On February 3, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law 

on Defendants’ mitigation of damages defense. See Docket No. 215. At approximately the same 

time, Defendants filed an opposition brief addressing Plaintiff’s motion. As the Court had set no 

deadline for filing an opposition brief and there was no undue delay in filing that brief, the Court 

GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 219] and treats 

Defendants’ opposition brief as a motion to reconsider. Having reconsidered the arguments in 

Defendants’ opposition brief, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of 

law as to Defendants’ mitigation defense. 

The listings cited by Defendants in their brief as evidence that comparable jobs were

available to Mr. Wadler offer no details beyond the titles of the positions; they do not describe the 

job responsibilities of the positions or include any information about salary or benefits. The mere 

fact that some of these job titles sound similar to Mr. Wadler’s is not sufficient to support a 

reasonable finding by the jury that any of these positions were substantially equivalent to Mr. 

Wadler’s position at Bio-Rad. Nor is there any other evidence in the record from which a 

reasonable jury could find that comparable employment was available during the relevant period. 

Case 3:15-cv-02356-JCS Document 220 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Instead, the jury would be required to speculate as to the availability of substantially equivalent 

employment.

Defendants’ reliance on E.E.O.C. v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1994) is 

misplaced. In that case, the court denied summary judgment as to the defendant’s mitigation 

defense where the defendant had presented “reliable data, based upon a random statistical sample 

of 148 companies located near [the plaintiff’s] residence, showing that substantially equivalent 

jobs were widely available” during the relevant period. 31 F.3d 891, 906 (9th Cir. 1994). That 

case differed from the facts here in two key respects. First, Defendants here have not offered any 

“reliable data” establishing the availability of comparable jobs as a statistical matter. Second, in 

contrast to the plaintiff in Farmer Brothers, who held an “unskilled” position when the defendant 

terminated her, Mr. Wadler held a high-level position and had acquired decades of seniority at 

Bio-Rad. Under such circumstances, relying on generic job titles to show the availability of 

comparable positions is particularly inappropriate.

Sangster v. United Air Lines, Inc., 633 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980) also is not on point. 

In that case, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff had failed 

to mitigate her damages where she had been terminated from her position as a flight attendant 

supervisor and she admitted that she was aware that a comparable position “had been available . . . 

for at least the last few years of her unemployment.” Id. at 868. She also admitted that “other . . .

employees on similar circumstances had obtained” such positions. Id. There are no such 

admissions here.

Therefore, on reconsideration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a 

matter of law on Defendants’ mitigation defense.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2017

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02356-JCS Document 220 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 2