Emmons v. First Student, Inc.

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT denying 47 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/12/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JANAY EMMONS,
Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

10

FIRST STUDENT, INC.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 19-cv-02964-SI

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 47

12
13

On September 11, 2019, the Court held a hearing on defendant’s motion for summary

14

judgment. After consideration of the parties’ briefing and arguments, the Court DENIES the motion.

15

There are numerous genuine issues of material fact that amount to more than mere

16

metaphysical doubts. For example, plaintiff offers evidence of pretext with respect defendant’s

17

alleged legitimate nondiscriminatory/nonretaliatory reasons for terminating plaintiff. For each

18

cause of action, defendant argues it had three legitimate reasons for terminating plaintiff: (1)

19

misrepresentations plaintiff allegedly made when she applied for the job regarding her health; (2)

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

that plaintiff could not safely perform her essential job duties due to her health conditions and (3)
that plaintiff abandoned her job and refused to engage in the interactive process. Dkt. No. 47-1 at
24 (Motion for Summary Judgment). The May 11, 2016 letter sent to plaintiff, giving her a deadline
of May 21, 2016 to respond or lose her job, failed to include her apartment number, even though,
allegedly, defendant had previously sent plaintiff correctly addressed correspondence. Dkt. No. 502 ⁋ 8 (Janay Emmons Declaration In Support of Opposition).
Further, defendant argues Ms. Emmons was terminated on May 31, 2016, after a “lengthy
interactive process in which Defendant engaged with Plaintiff [starting on] March 16, 2016,” but

27
plaintiff ultimately refused to engage with defendant in the interactive process. Dkt. No. 51 at 12
28

1

(Reply) (emphasis original). But plaintiff testified she repeatedly tried to reach her manager, Mr.

2

Cooper, prior to May 31, 2016 to no avail. Dkt. No. 50-2 ⁋ 8 (Janay Emmons Decl. In Support of

3

Opposition). Further, testimony from Ms. Dagny — plaintiff’s former co-worker who was employed

4

as a receptionist -- testified Mr. Cooper was “very aware” of Ms. Emmons’ calls and that he would

5

“always have an excuse not to speak to [Ms. Emmons] even though he was the one requesting the

6

call from her.” Dkt. No 50-1 at 20 at 20 (Ex. A to Seidl Declaration – Excerpts from Anya Dagny

7

Deposition). The Court understands that Ms. Dagny was not at work from mid-April 2016 onwards.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dkt. No. 51 at 11 (Reply). However, her testimony supports plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s
proffered legitimate reasons for termination are pretextual due to the way in which plaintiff’s
supervisor allegedly treated her.
Because of this and other substantially disputed facts, the motion is DENIED.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 12, 2020
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2