Guerrero v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 104

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Alsup re 66 Motion for Summary Judgment; re 76 Motion for Summary Judgment; re 90 Motion to Strike (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
VICTOR GUERRERO,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 13-05671 WHA
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
& REHABILITATION, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.
/

16
17

The essence of this action is as follows. Plaintiff identifies himself as Latino. He applied

18

to be a correctional officer with defendant California Department of Corrections and

19

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). On his questionnaire, he admitted to previously using a false social

20

security number. As a result, he was withheld from the list of eligible candidates, a decision he

21

appealed to defendant State Personnel Board (“SPB”). The SPB analyst recommended denying

22

the appeal. SPB then remanded to the SPB analyst “for clarification on how [plaintiff] was able

23

to obtain his social security number in 2005, when the findings indicate that he did not become a

24

permanent resident until 2007, and did not become a naturalized US citizen until 2010.” The SPB

25

analyst then telephoned plaintiff and interviewed him in an unrecorded call. The board affirmed

26

the CDCR’s decision. He then applied again and was withheld again. He now alleges, inter alia,

27

that the question regarding prior use of another social security number on the employer’s

28

questionnaire has a disproportionate impact on Latinos. He further alleges that he was denied due
process of law. Fact discovery has not closed.

1

Defendants move to dismiss the procedural due process claim and CDCR moves to

2

dismiss the Title VII claim. Having considered the papers and heard oral argument, the Court is

3

convinced that triable issues remain. Both sides would benefit from further development of the

4

record. Accordingly, the motions for summary judgment are DENIED. The evidentiary objections

5

and motion to strike are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All existing deadlines remain in place.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated: September 30, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2