Bastidas v. Good Samaritan Hospital LP et al

Filing 126

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/30/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

J. AUGUSTO BASTIDAS,

Case No. 13-cv-04388-SI

Plaintiff,
6
v.

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

7
8

GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL LP, et
al.,

9

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 118

Before the Court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s opposition to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that motion. In both filings, the parties exclusively cite Title VII retaliation cases on the issue of

12

ausation

a ne essary prong of plaintiff’s prima facie case. See Manatt v. Bank of Am., NA, 339

13

F.3d 792, 800 (9th Cir. 2003). The parties are requested to file supplemental briefs on the

14

following issue:

15

What impact, if any, does the Supreme Court’s decision in University of Texas

16

Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013)

17

(holding that a heightened “but-for” standard of causation applies to Title VII retaliation claims)

18

have in this 42 U.S.C. § 1981 action? See also T.B. ex rel. Brenneise v. San Diego Unified Sch.

19

Dist., 795 F.3d 1067, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015). The Ninth Circuit employs the McDonnell Douglas

20

summary judgment evidentiary approach in both § 1981 and Title VII claims, Maduka v. Sunrise

21

Hosp., 375 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2004), and has re ognized that “[r]etaliation laims under Title

22

VII and § 1981 share identi al legal standards.” Williams v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 316 F.

23

App’x 563, 564 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Manatt, 339 F.3d at 797).

24

The parties shall file these briefs by October 13, 2015.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: September 30, 2015
________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge