Maher v. City of Fresno

Filing 76

Memorandum Decision And ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Adjudication 63 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/3/2009. Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED on the part of her claim that the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is an "education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" under Title IX. Plaintiff shall submit a form of order consistent with, and within five (5) days following electronic service of, this memorandum decision. Oral argument on this motion set for September 14, 2009, is VACATED. (Scrivner, E)

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "A district court does not, of course, make `findings of fact' in ruling on a summary judgment motion. Findings of fact are made on the basis of evidentiary hearings and usually involve credibility determinations." Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) ("As this case was decided on summary judgment, there have not yet been factual findings by a judge or jury . . . ."); Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1486 (11th Cir. 1996). 1
1

MICHELLE MAHER Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FRESNO, Defendant.

08-CV-00050-OWW-SMS MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is a motion for summary adjudication filed by Plaintiff Michelle Maher ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff seeks summary

adjudication on the issue of whether the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is an "education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" for purposes of Title IX. Defendant City of Fresno ("Defendant") does not oppose the motion. The following background facts are taken from the parties'

submissions in connection with the motion and other documents on file in this case.1

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

II. BACKGROUND The City of Fresno Fire Department is a subdivision of 7.)2

Defendant City of Fresno, a public entity. (Doc. 15 at

Plaintiff applied for employment as a firefighter recruit to the City of Fresno Fire Department in 2005. (Id.) Plaintiff was

accepted into the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy and, on October 10, 2005, became a conditional employee of the City of Fresno working as a firefighter recruit. (Id.; Doc. 69 at 1-2.) Plaintiff's ultimate employment was conditioned on her successful completion of the probationary period and testing at the conclusion of that probationary period. On December 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed a state-court complaint in the Fresno County Superior Court. Plaintiff's complaint

contains four claims: (1) discrimination under the California Government environment Code § 12940; (2) sexual harassment/hostile Code § 12940; work (3)

under

California

Government

discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a); and (4) discrimination in violation of public policy. On January 10, 2008, Defendant removed Plaintiff's state-

court action to federal court, and Plaintiff has not since amended her complaint. In her Title IX claim, Plaintiff alleges Defendant

forced her to resign from the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy and refused to reinstate her based at least in part on the unlawful consideration of her gender, parental status, and primary care-giving status in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1681.

Document "Doc." 15 is the Scheduling Conference Order. 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

III. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION STANDARD A "party claiming relief," such as Plaintiff, may move "for summary judgment on all or part of the claim." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (emphasis added). "The standards and procedures for granting partial summary judgment, also known as summary adjudication, are the same as those for summary judgment." Mora v. Chem-Tronics, Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1200 (S.D. Cal. 1998). Summary judgment

is appropriate when "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Under Title IX, "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C. 1681(a) (emphasis added). Plaintiff moves for summary

adjudication on the issue of whether the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is an "education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" under Title IX. Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 72). In its statement of non-opposition, Defendant

states that it "will not oppose the Court's finding that the [Defendant] CITY OF FRESNO is an education institution within the meaning of Title IX, 20 U.S.C 1681 because the CITY OF FRESNO responded to Requests for Admissions to that [e]ffect." (Doc. 72 at

3

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.)3

Defendant submitted its own proposed order on Plaintiff's

motion stating that "it shall be established in this litigation, that the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is `an education assistance' program for or activity of receiving federal alleged" financial Title IX

purposes

Defendant's

liability. (Doc. 73 at 1.) which Plaintiff

In response to requests for admission Defendant admitted that its Fire

propounded,

Department had received federal financial assistance and that the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is an education

institution within the meaning of Title IX. (See Doc. 69, Ex. B at 13.) Plaintiff submitted these discovery responses in connection

with her motion for summary adjudication. Based on the parties' submissions, it is undisputed, and there is no triable issue, that the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is an "education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" under Title IX for purposes of Defendant's alleged Title IX liability. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED on the part of her claim that the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is an "education program or activity receiving Federal

In its statement of non-opposition, Defendant suggests that Plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts is "not allowed" under "Local Rule 56-2." This purported rule, "Local Rule 56-2," does not exist. The applicable local rule, Local Rule 56-260(a), specifically requires a party, such as Plaintiff, to file a statement of undisputed facts in connection with a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. Plaintiff's separate statement of undisputed facts is proper under Local Rule 56-260(a). 4

3

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

financial assistance" under Title IX. Plaintiff shall submit a form of order consistent with, and within five (5) days following Oral electronic on service motion of, set this for

memorandum

decision.

argument

this

September 14, 2009, is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9i274f September 3, 2009 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5