Moody v. County of San Mateo et al

Filing 69

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GAINES'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; VACATING HEARING. Defendant Gaines is entitled to summary judgment on the Title VII claim. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 23, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STACEY MOODY, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, LAURENCE GAINES, RON SALAZAR, Defendants /

No. C-08-1864 MMC ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GAINES'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; VACATING HEARING

United States District Court

Before the Court is defendant Laurence Gaines's ("Gaines") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed September 30, 2009. Plaintiff Stacey Moody ("Moody") has lodged opposition,1 to which Gaines has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the parties' respective submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for November 6, 2009, and rules as follows. In her complaint, Moody alleges that while she was employed by the County of San Mateo, she was "without provocation assaulted and battered" by Gaines (see Compl. ¶ 11), and that Gaines "harassed [her] by habitual sexual comments" (see Compl. ¶ 30). Based on said allegations, Moody alleges, as against Gaines, a federal claim for sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, as well as state law claims for battery and for intentional Plaintiff's administrative motion to file her opposition under seal is pending.

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

and negligent infliction of emotional distress. By the instant motion, Gaines seeks summary judgment on the Title VII claim only. In particular, Gaines argues, a plaintiff may not proceed with a sexual harassment claim under Title VII against an individual who is not an employer. The Court agrees, and finds Moody's arguments to the contrary without merit. See Craig v. M&O Agencies, Inc., 496 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of supervisor on sexual harassment claim brought under Title VII; stating, "We have long held that Title VII does not provide a separate cause of action against supervisors or co-workers"). Accordingly, the motion for partial summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2