Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02234/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02234-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Defendant
Bridget Logan
Plaintiff
R. James Nicholson
Defendant

Document Text:

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 1

By order filed October 19, 2006, the Court vacated the scheduled November 3,

2006 hearing and took the matter under submission.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIDGET LOGAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant /

No. C-05-2234 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is defendant R. James Nicholson’s motion, filed September 22,

2006, for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff has not filed opposition. Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as

follows.1

As demonstrated by defendant, plaintiff has not exhausted the claim alleged herein,

specifically, a claim of harassment on the basis of gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Even assuming plaintiff had exhausted said claim,

defendant is, for the reasons stated in his motion, entitled to judgment for three separate

reasons: (1) plaintiff lacks evidence to support a finding that she was subjected to

“sufficiently severe or pervasive” conduct that could “alter the conditions of [her]

Case 3:05-cv-02234-MMC Document 43 Filed 10/26/06 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

employment and create an abusive working environment,” see Harris v. Forklift Systems,

Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); (2) plaintiff lacks evidence to support a finding that the

conduct at issue, being pushed by a female co-worker into a room where a male co-worker

yelled at her and would not allow her to leave for several minutes, was motivated by

animus toward plaintiff’s gender, see Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523

U.S. 75, 76-78 (1998) (holding Title VII prohibits harassment “because of” gender); and

(3) plaintiff lacks evidence to support a finding that defendant itself was negligent, see

Swenson v. Potter, 271 F. 3d 1184, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding where Title VII claim

premised on harassment by co-worker, employer liable only where “its own negligence is a

cause” of harassment).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby

GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant and thereafter

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02234-MMC Document 43 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2