Rose v. Plastikon Ind.
Filing
122
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING MIXED MOTIVE JURY INSTRUCTION re 112 Order. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 5, 2012.. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
WILLIE ROSE,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
REGARDING MIXED MOTIVE
JURY INSTRUCTION
PLASTIKON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
14
Defendant.
/
15
16
No. C 10-04355 WHA
In a Title VII retaliation claim, either a “single motive” or “mixed motive” instruction can
17
be provided to the jury. See Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1067–68 (9th Cir.
18
2004) (citing Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 856–57 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), aff’d,
19
539 U.S. 90 (2003)). On deciding which instruction to give, our court of appeals has provided the
20
following guideline:
21
23
If, based on the evidence, the trial court determines that the only reasonable conclusion a
jury could reach is that discriminatory animus is the sole cause for the challenged
employment action or that discrimination played no role at all in the employer’s
decisionmaking, then the jury should be instructed to determine whether the challenged
action was taken “because of” the prohibited reason.
24
.....
25
In contrast, in cases in which the evidence could support a finding that discrimination is
one of two or more reasons for the challenged decision, at least one of which may be
legitimate, the jury should be instructed to determine first whether the discriminatory
reason was “a motivating factor” in the challenged action.
22
26
27
28
Costa, 299 F.3d at 856–57. In our case, the trial record supports a finding that unlawful
1
retaliation could be one of two reasons, the other reason being that plaintiff threatened his
2
supervisor, for discharging plaintiff.
3
The trial evidence supports a reasonable conclusions that plaintiff was fired after making
4
multiple complaints of discrimination and harassment against his supervisor. The proximity in
5
time between plaintiff’s complaints and his discharge supports this conclusion. After nine years
6
of excellent performance reviews, plaintiff received an increasing number of write-ups after a
7
new, allegedly discriminatory supervisor arrived. Six months after the supervisor’s arrival,
8
plaintiff was terminated only a couple of weeks after making his first complaint of harassment
9
and discrimination by that supervisor.
The trial evidence also supports a reasonable conclusion that plaintiff was fired for
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
verbally threatening his supervisor. The night before plaintiff was fired, plaintiff and his
12
supervisor got into a heated argument. Although details of the argument are in dispute, percipient
13
witness testimonies support a reasonable conclusion that plaintiff threatened his supervisor’s life,
14
which is a legitimate reason for discharge under company policy. The evidence supports a
15
reasonable conclusion that defendant conducted an adequate investigation of the incident and
16
discharged plaintiff based on that incident.
17
In sum, the evidence at trial supports a finding that both retaliation for plaintiff’s
18
harassment and discrimination complaints and plaintiff’s threatening of a supervisor motivated
19
defendant to discharge plaintiff. Therefore, the instruction shall use the “motivating factor”
20
alternative.
21
22
23
24
Dated: March 2, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?