Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-03097/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-03097-6/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUISE E. BURTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FRANCIS J. HARVEY, Secretary of the

Army,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-95-3097 MMC

ORDER RE: UNTIMELY OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On December 13, 2006, the Court issued an order granting defendant’s motion for

summary judgment. In that order, the Court observed, inter alia, that although plaintiff was

required to file an opposition no later than December 1, 2006, no opposition had been filed. 

On the same date, after the Court issued its summary judgment order, plaintiff filed a

belated opposition to defendant’s motion. Plaintiff points out that defendant expressly

stated in his motion for summary judgment that plaintiff’s opposition “must be filed with the

Court and served on Defendant no later than October 13, 2006,” (see Motion at 1:14-26);

plaintiff attests she “had taken that to be a typo” and believed that the actual deadline was

December 13. (See Burton Decl. ¶ 14.) Although Burton had an independent obligation to

determine the applicable deadline, the Court nonetheless accepts Burton’s representation

and will consider her opposition.

Case 3:95-cv-03097-MMC Document 52 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Having reviewed the papers submitted in support of plaintiff’s opposition, however,

the Court finds plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of material fact with respect to her

claims of gender and racial harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. In particular, plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support a finding that any

conduct on the part of plaintiff’s former supervisor was, either in whole or in part, motivated

by plaintiff’s sex or race. See, e.g., Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S.

75, 80 (1998) (holding Title VII prohibits harassment “because of” sex); Manatt v. Bank of

America, 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding plaintiff’s prima facie case of racial

harassment requires showing that conduct was “because of” race). As the Supreme Court

has observed, Title VII is not “a general civility code for the American workplace.” See

Oncale, 523 U.S. at 81. 

Accordingly, the Court finds plaintiff’s opposition sets forth no evidence suggesting

that the Court’s order granting summary judgment for defendant should be set aside.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:95-cv-03097-MMC Document 52 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 2