Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02347/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02347-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

Case No.:14-cv-02347-NC 

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

JIMMY PERKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL EXPRESS 

CORPORATION, DURHAM SCHOOL 

SERVICES, L.P., PETERMANN LTD., 

AND KIRK TOSTENRUDE,

Defendants.

Case No.14-cv-02347-NC 

CLARIFYING SUPPLEMENT TO 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s summary judgment 

order. Dkt. No. 88. The Court denied defendants’ motion for failure to meet the standards 

under Civil Local Rule 7-9. Dkt. No. 95. Nonetheless, in the interest of helping the parties 

prepare for trial, the Court issues this Order clarifying its summary judgment order. 

Specifically, the Court outlines below the claims that remain at issue for trial and the 

claims that do not survive summary judgment. 

The following claims remain at issue for trial: 

 FEHA race-discrimination claim with multiple drug testing or termination as 

the adverse employment action. Complaint, Dkt. No. 1-1 at ¶ 41 (wrongful 

termination), ¶ 42 (drug testing).

 Claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 to the extent 

it is based on the FEHA race-discrimination claim with multiple drug testing 

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 97 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 2
Case No.:14-cv-02347-NC 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

or termination as the adverse employment action. Dkt. No. 1-1 at ¶ 65. 

 Claim under the doctrine of wrongful termination in violation of public 

policy to the extent it is based on the FEHA race-discrimination claim with 

multiple drug testing or termination as the adverse employment action. Id. at 

¶ 68.

The following claims do not survive summary judgment and will not be tried:

 FEHA race-discrimination claim with failure to investigate, failure to train, 

or failure to promote as the adverse employment action. 

 FEHA hostile-work-environment claim. Id. at ¶ 42-43.

 Breach-of-contract claim. Id. at ¶ 56.

 Invasion-of-privacy claim. Id. at ¶ 61. 

 Claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 to the extent 

it is based on the FEHA race-discrimination claim with failure to investigate, 

failure to train, or failure to promote as the adverse employment action; the 

FEHA hostile-work-environment claim; the breach-of-contract claim; or the 

invasion-of privacy claim. Dkt. No. 1-1 at ¶ 65 

 Claim under the doctrine of wrongful termination in violation of public 

policy to the extent it is based on the FEHA race-discrimination claim with 

failure to investigate, failure to train, or failure to promote as the adverse 

employment action; the FEHA hostile-work-environment claim; the breachof-contract claim; or the invasion-of privacy claim. Id. at ¶ 68.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02347-NC Document 97 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 2