Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. et al
Filing
220
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING ON RECONSIDERATION MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON MITIGATION DEFENSE by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 219 Motion for Leave to File. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SANFORD S. WADLER,
Case No. 15-cv-02356-JCS
Plaintiff,
8
v.
11
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND GRANTING ON
RECONSIDERATION MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
ON MITIGATION DEFENSE
12
Re: Dkt. No. 219
9
10
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC., et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
13
14
On February 3, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law
15
on Defendants’ mitigation of damages defense. See Docket No. 215. At approximately the same
16
time, Defendants filed an opposition brief addressing Plaintiff’s motion. As the Court had set no
17
deadline for filing an opposition brief and there was no undue delay in filing that brief, the Court
18
GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 219] and treats
19
Defendants’ opposition brief as a motion to reconsider. Having reconsidered the arguments in
20
Defendants’ opposition brief, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of
21
law as to Defendants’ mitigation defense.
22
The listings cited by Defendants in their brief as evidence that comparable jobs were
23
available to Mr. Wadler offer no details beyond the titles of the positions; they do not describe the
24
job responsibilities of the positions or include any information about salary or benefits. The mere
25
fact that some of these job titles sound similar to Mr. Wadler’s is not sufficient to support a
26
reasonable finding by the jury that any of these positions were substantially equivalent to Mr.
27
Wadler’s position at Bio-Rad. Nor is there any other evidence in the record from which a
28
reasonable jury could find that comparable employment was available during the relevant period.
1
Instead, the jury would be required to speculate as to the availability of substantially equivalent
2
employment.
3
Defendants’ reliance on E.E.O.C. v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1994) is
misplaced. In that case, the court denied summary judgment as to the defendant’s mitigation
5
defense where the defendant had presented “reliable data, based upon a random statistical sample
6
of 148 companies located near [the plaintiff’s] residence, showing that substantially equivalent
7
jobs were widely available” during the relevant period. 31 F.3d 891, 906 (9th Cir. 1994). That
8
case differed from the facts here in two key respects. First, Defendants here have not offered any
9
“reliable data” establishing the availability of comparable jobs as a statistical matter. Second, in
10
contrast to the plaintiff in Farmer Brothers, who held an “unskilled” position when the defendant
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
terminated her, Mr. Wadler held a high-level position and had acquired decades of seniority at
12
Bio-Rad. Under such circumstances, relying on generic job titles to show the availability of
13
comparable positions is particularly inappropriate.
14
Sangster v. United Air Lines, Inc., 633 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980) also is not on point.
15
In that case, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff had failed
16
to mitigate her damages where she had been terminated from her position as a flight attendant
17
supervisor and she admitted that she was aware that a comparable position “had been available . . .
18
for at least the last few years of her unemployment.” Id. at 868. She also admitted that “other . . .
19
employees on similar circumstances had obtained” such positions. Id. There are no such
20
admissions here.
21
22
23
24
25
26
Therefore, on reconsideration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a
matter of law on Defendants’ mitigation defense.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2017
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
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?