Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02873/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02873-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bayer Healthcare
Defendant
Dwight Dove
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

DWIGHT DOVE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Biological

Products Division, a for profit business entity,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-02873 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 12, 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-02873-JSW Document 53 Filed 05/11/06 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). Does Plaintiff dispute that the

qualifications for the B HVAC mechanic position were specified in the Bayer

job posting (Smith Declaration, Ex. A)? On what basis, beside two courses in

college 17 years prior, does Plaintiff contend that he matched the qualifications

of the position for which he applied?

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. Assuming Plaintiff’s

factual allegations are true, on what basis does Plaintiff assert that Scott Higgins

was similarly situated if he was promoted based on his friendship with the

supervisor, Richard Smith?

3. Should Plaintiff be able to establish a prima facie case, the burden would shift to

Bayer to assert a legitimate business reason not to promote him. Because Bayer

presents evidence demonstrating such a reason, Plaintiff bears the burden of

demonstrating that Defendant’s articulated reason is pretextual. Plaintiff may do

so “either [1] directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more

likely motivated the employer or [2] indirectly by showing that the employer’s

proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group,

892 F.2d 1434, 1437 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal cites and quotations omitted). 

What specific evidence in the record demonstrates that Bayer’s articulated

reason is pretextual?

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02873-JSW Document 53 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2