Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02871/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02871-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

NATHANIEL WOODS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-02871 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 MAY 19, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

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

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Case 3:05-cv-02871-JSW Document 56 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

The parties shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must

demonstrate that he was qualified for the available position. St. Mary’s Honor

Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993). On what basis does Plaintiff contend

that he had achieved the requisite eligibility in time and proficiency for Code 12

advancement? How does evidence of inconsistencies in the application of the

exceptional circumstance exception in advancement indicate that the reason for

denial of Plaintiff’s request for advancement was based on his race?

2. Further, in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must

demonstrate that similarly situated individuals not in the protected class were

treated more favorably. St. Mary’s, 509 U.S. at 506. How does Plaintiff

maintain that he was subjected to racism when two other African-Americans

were advanced as exceptional cases in his department? How can Mr. Wong’s

shift be set aside as a representative sample?

3. How are any of the remarks complained of regarding Plaintiff’s heart monitor or

physical ailments related to his race? How are these comments indicative of a

severely abusive or pervasively hostile working environment?

4. Is there evidence that the questionnaire (Ralston Declaration, Ex. I) was not

before the EEOC? What authority does Bayer have to support its contention that

the EEOC did not consider the underlying facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims

here?

5. What is the basis for Plaintiff’s retaliation claim if the alleged failure to advance

him occurred significantly before his alleged protected activity? Does Plaintiff

maintain that his decision after medical leave not to return to Bayer after being

offered “an appropriate position” constitutes an adverse employment action?

6. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02871-JSW Document 56 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2