Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04650/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04650-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

DEE M. ROBY, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, and DOES 1 through

50, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-4650 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 FEBRUARY 17, 2006:

The Court tentatively GRANTS in part defendant American Airlines, Inc.’s

(“American”) motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s fourth and eighth causes of action,

and tentatively DENIES in part American’s motion as to the sixth cause of action. 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

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. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). 

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

authority.

Case 3:04-cv-04650-JSW Document 73 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Each party will have twenty minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Defendant reads Plaintiff’s fourth and sixth causes of action to state claims for unlawful 

termination because of a medical condition. Defendant moves for summary judgment on

the basis that Plaintiff’s injured back and associated work restrictions do not constitute a

medical condition as defined by Cal. Govt. Code § 12926(h). In her opposition, Plaintiff

does not claim that she has a medical condition, but instead argues for leave to amend to

include a claim for unlawful termination because of mental disability. Plaintiff alleges

that she learned she had been diagnosed with depression during discovery, that the

Defendant knew of that diagnosis before terminating her employment, and that the

termination was because of such disability. 

(a) Do the fourth and sixth causes of action state claims for unlawful termination

because of physical disability (i.e. that Plaintiff was terminated because of her

injured back and associated work restrictions)? 

(b) Why should leave to amend be granted to add a claim for termination because of

mental disability? What evidence does Plaintiff have to show that she was

diagnosed with depression or that the Defendant was aware of that diagnosis?

(c) Assuming that the fourth and sixth causes of action state claims for unlawful

termination because of physical disability or that leave to amend is granted to add

a claim for mental disability, what evidence in the record shows that Defendant

acted with discriminatory intent in terminating Plaintiff’s employment?

(2) As part of her prima facie case, Plaintiff must show that her job performance was

satisfactory. Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317, 355 (Cal. 2000); see also Nidds v.

Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 1996). Defendant has offered

evidence that Plaintiff violated company policy on three specific occasions: by

upgrading Mr. Hensley to first class; by issuing vouchers to Mr. Patel's acquaintances;

and by distributing business cards for an outside business while on duty. 

(a) What evidence does Plaintiff offer to show that she did not violate company

policy and that she was performing her job in a satisfactory manner? 

Case 3:04-cv-04650-JSW Document 73 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

(b) Alternatively, assuming that Plaintiff has made a prima facie case, Defendant has

offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s termination,

specifically that she violated company policy. What evidence in the record

shows that the Defendant’s explanation for Plaintiff’s termination was pretext

and that the true reason for her termination was a discriminatory one?

(3) Does the sixth cause of action state a claim under Cal. Govt. Code § 12940(n) for failure

to engage in the interactive process in response to a request for reasonable

accommodations? If so, what evidence in the record supports such a claim? 

(4) Plaintiff's eighth cause of action alleges that her employment was terminated because of

her age, and cites Cal. Govt. Code § 12940, which makes such termination an unlawful

employment practice. A statutory cause of action under § 12940 requires a plaintiff to

exhaust FEHA’s administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit, Cal. Govt. Code

§ 12960(d), which Plaintiff has not done. However, FEHA does not preempt common

law causes of action, and a plaintiff need not exhaust FEHA’s administrative remedies to

bring a common law tort claim for discrimination in violation of public policy. 

Stevenson v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 880, 885 (Cal. 1997). To state a common law

tort claim for discrimination in violation of public policy, a Plaintiff must show that the

policy is delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions, id. at 894, such as the

express prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age encompassed by § 12940. 

See id. at 895. 

(a) Does the eighth cause of action state a common law cause of action for

termination in violation of public policy?

(b) Assuming that Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action states a common law cause of

action and an ERISA claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1140, what evidence in the record

shows that Plaintiff’s termination was due to her age and/or to interfere with her

retirement benefits?

Case 3:04-cv-04650-JSW Document 73 Filed 02/16/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

4

(5) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04650-JSW Document 73 Filed 02/16/06 Page 4 of 4