N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AIM EE LESPR ON a

nd STAC EY SM ITH, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. TUTOR TIM E LEAR

NING C ENTER , LLC , a M i c higa n lim ite d lia

bility c om pa ny ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15333 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-01760-NVW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B UR N S, Distric t Judge . ** Pla intiffs Aim e e Le spron a nd Sta c e y Sm ith a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Tutor Tim e Le arning C e nte r, LLC and



# FIL ED D EC 24 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble La rry A. B urns, Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Le arning C are Group, LLC on the ir Title VII and Ariz ona C ivil Rights Ac t c la im s . W e re ve rse . Esta blishing a prim a

fa c ie c a se of pre gna

nc y disc rim ination re quire s showing tha

t e m ploy e e s who we re tre ate d m ore fav ora bly tha n Pla intiffs we re

“ sim i la r ‘ in a ll mate rial re spe c ts.’ ” N ic h olson v
. Hy annis Air Serv ., Inc . , 580 F.3d 1116, 1125 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting Moran v . Se lig , 447 F.3d 748, 755 (9th C ir. 2006)). Howe ve r, at the sum m ary judgm e nt sta ge , “ ‘ [t] he re q uisitede gre e of proof ne c e ssa ry to e sta blish a prim a fa c ie c a se . . . is m inimal an d doe s not e v e n ne e d to rise to the le ve l of a pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e .’ ” Aragon v . Re public Silv e r State Disposal, Inc
. , 292 F.3d 654, 659 (9th C ir. 2002) (a l te ration in origina l) (quoting W

allis v . J .R. Simplot C

o. , 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th C i r. 1994)). W e have c are fully re vie we d the e vide nc e in the re c ord, a nd we c o n c lude tha

t Pla intiffs ha

ve m e t this minim a l burde n. The c ritic a l issuein this c a se is whe the r Pla intiffs ha ve ra ise d a

tria ble issue of fa c t a s to whe t

he r De fe nda

nts’ le gitim ate , nondisc rim inatory re a sons for re duc i ng Pla intiffs’ hours a re m e re ly a pre te xt for disc rim ination. Evidenc e tha t a de fe nda n t’ s proffe re d re a sons a

re not its true

re a sons, toge the r with the e vide nc e in support of a

pla intiff’ s prim a

fa c ie c a se , pe rm its, but doe s not c om pe l, a c onc lusion that a de fe nda nt’ s a c t ions we re m otiva

te d by disc rim ination. Re e v e

s v . Sande rson Pa ge -2-Plumbing Prods., Inc
. , 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary ’s Honor C tr. v . Hic k s , 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993). Howe ve r, onc e a

pla intiff ra ise s a

ge n uine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a

b out the ve ra c ity

of a de fe nda nt’ s proffe re d e xpla

nation, sum

m ary judgm e nt is ina

ppropria te ; the q ue stion of whe the r the “ re a l re a s on” for the a c tion wa s disc rim ination is a

que stion for thefa c tfinde r. N oy e s v . K e lly Se rv s. , 488 F.3d 1163, 1170-72 (9th C ir. 2007); W ashington v. Garre tt , 10 F.3d 1421, 1433 (9th C ir. 1993). De fe nda nts re pre se nt tha

t the y ne e de d to re d

uc e hours be c a

use of de c lining e nrollm e nt a

t the Que e n C re e k fa c ility an d the y de te rm ine d whose hours to re duc e ba se d on e m

p loy e e s ’ ava ila

b ility , fle xibility , and atte nda nc e . Although the se e xpla nations a re c onsiste nt a

nd not e vide nc e of pre te x t, the re are a dditional fa c ts in this c a s e tha

t c a s t doubt on the

ve ra c ity of De fe nda

nts’ proffe re d e xpla

nat ions. In De fe nda nts’ position sta

te m e nts to theEqua l Em

ploy m e nt Opportunity C om m ission a nd the Ariz o na C ivil Rights Division, De fe nda nts ne ve r onc e m e ntione d Pla i ntiffs’ atte nda nc e proble m s a s the re a son for a re duc tion in the ir hours, nor did they

m e nt ion the de c lining e nrollm e nt. In fa c t, De fe nda nts de nie d that Le spron’ s hours we re re duc e d , re pre se nte d tha t Sm ith re q

ue ste d a re duc tion in hours, a n d c la im e d tha

t the shifts worke d by

ne wly -hire d

e m ploy e e s we re shifts Sm i th c ould not work. De fe nda nts a t one point a lso c l a im e d tha t Sm i th wa s not Pa ge -3-a llowe d to be le ft a lone in a pa rtic ula r c la ssroom

pe r the re que st of a

pa re nt. In re sponse , Pla intiffs produc e d e v ide nc e tha

t se riously

que s tions theve ra c ity

of the se a sse rtions. Although De fe nda nts a tte m pt to e xpla in a

way the se va rious sta te m e nts, a fa c tfinde r is fre e to a c c e pt or re je c t De fe n da

nts’ e xpla nations. At the sum

m ary judgm e nt sta ge , howe ve r, the fa c t tha t De fe nda nts ha ve offe re d shifting a

nd que stiona ble e xpla nations for the ir a c tions pre c lude s a grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt. Se e Re e v e s , 530 U.S. a

t 147; Pay nev . N

orw e s t C orp. , 113 F.3d 1079, 1080 (9th C ir. 1997). For the a bove re a s ons, we re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt to De fe n da

nt s, a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings c o nsiste nt with this disposition. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

Pa ge -4-