Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01969/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01969-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Starbucks Corporation
Defendant
Terri Yarkin
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRI YARKIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-01969 CRB

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Now pending before the Court’s defendant’s motion for summary judgment. After

carefully considering the papers and evidence submitted by the parties, the Court DENIES

defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims for age discrimination and

wrongful constructive discharge. A reasonable trier of fact could find that defendant

constructively discharged plaintiff and could also find that defendant’s conduct was

motivated by plaintiff’s age. 

The Court OVERRULES defendant’s objection to plaintiff’s testimony as to the “old”

comments; defendant has not proven that the declaration statements are so contradictory as to

constitute a “sham.” See Kennedy v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266-67

(9th Cir. 1991). The Court concludes, however, that even without such evidence a

reasonable trier of fact could find for plaintiff.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s breach of oral contract and

Case 3:07-cv-01969-CRB Document 54 Filed 03/31/08 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

G:\CRBALL\2007\1969\orderresj.wpd 2

intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims is GRANTED as plaintiff’s 

opposition does not address defendant’s arguments on these claims. See Abogados v. 

AT&T, Inc. 223 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01969-CRB Document 54 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 2