Mou v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 2209

Mou v. City of San Jose et al

Doc. 2209

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413 A. CATHERINE LAGARDE, ESQ. SB#209255 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES A. BONNER 180 HARBOR DRIVE, SUITE 227 SAUSALITO, CA 94965 TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PATRICK FAULKNER THOMAS F. LYONS, ESQ. SB#191066 COUNTY COUNSEL SUITE 303 CIVIC CENTER SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM H. SWITZER, Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF MARIN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF MARIN, JAMES FARLEY III individually, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. / Case Number: C 03 4297 UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER Date: Time: Courtroom: F Hon. James Larson

The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this Case Management Statement and Proposed Order and request the Court to adopt it as its Case Management Order in this case. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE 1. A brief description of the events underlying the action: Plaintiff SWITZER alleges that during his tenure as an employee with MARIN CENTER AT THE COUNTY OF MARIN, Defendant COUNTY OF MARIN wrongfully terminated him, discriminated
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

against him on the basis of his race and age, created a hostile work environment, harassed and retaliated against him, including denying him the privileges, terms and conditions of employment afforded to other employees. More specifically, Mr. Switzer was retaliated against for protesting the discrimination of his daughter, a discrimination supported by a finding by the County of Marin. Defendant's Brief Description: Mr. Switzer was employed by the Defendant as an extra-hire Marin Center Utility Worker. "Extra-hire" status means individuals are called to serve on a temporary basis and are willing to work an irregular schedule in an as-needed basis. On or about September 10, 2003, Mr. Switzer confronted his manager, Jim Farley, about the reduction of hours for Extra-hires during the course of a staff meeting and questioned Mr. Farley's leadership, honesty and salary. When asked to leave the meeting, Mr. Switzer resisted the directive. Following this incident, Mr. Farley wrote to Mr. Switzer advising him that his services would not be needed in the future at the Center. 2. The principal factual issues which the parties dispute: The defendant disputes the following facts: The defendant disputes that plaintiff was subjected to retaliation for complaining about harassment and hostile work environment. Because of Mr. Switzer conduct at a staff meeting the decision not to keep his name on the list of available extra-hire workers was a legitimate consequence of his unjustifiable behavior in the workplace. 3. The principal legal issues which the parties dispute: Whether Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of his race and age. Whether Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff after he protested about harassment. Whether Defendants decision not to utilize the services of Mr. Switzer constituted an adverse employment action. 4. The other factual issues which remain unresolved for the reason stated below and how the parties propose to resolve those issues: None at this time 5. The parties which have not been served and the reasons: None 6. The additional parties which the below-specified parties intend to join and the intended time frame for such joinder: None 7. The following parties consent to assignment of this case to a United States Magistrate Judge for trial: Plaintiff and defendants
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: October 4, 2004 Dated: October 4, 2004

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 8. The parties will attend an ENE session on October 20, 2004 in front of Greta Schnetzler 9. The parties participated in a pre ENE conference on September 27, 2004. DISCLOSURES 10. The parties certify that they have made the following disclosures: Plaintiff served his initial disclosure as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on May 21, 2004. Defendants will serve their initial disclosure during the last week of July 2004. DISCOVERY 11. The parties agree to the following discovery plan: Defendant will conduct deposition of the plaintiff and any witnesses disclosed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff will depose George Pegelow, Christian Elliot, Larry Elliott, Tammy Switzer, Bruce Corbin,, Gustavo Alfaro. Plaintiff was deposed on October 17. Two witnesses ( James Farley, James Evans) will be deposed on October 12, 2004. Defendant and plaintiff will propound interrogatories, request for admissions and request for production of documents. Admission Request for Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Production of Documents to be completed by December 2004 Follow up interrogatories. To be completed: by January 2005 TRIAL SCHEDULE 12. The parties request a trial date as follows: April 2005 13. The parties expect that the trial will last for the following number of days: 5-7 days

_/s/ ___________________________________________ Thomas F. Lyons

_/s/____________________________________________ A. Catherine Lagarde

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION BY PARTIES AND LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-12, each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read the brochure entitled `Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California, discussed the available dispute resolution options provided by the court and private entities and has considered whether this case might benefit from any of the available dispute resolution options.

Dated: October 4, 2004

_/s /______________________________________________ Thomas F. Lyons

Dated: October 4, 2004

__/s/_____________________________________________ A. Catherine Lagarde

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court as the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. In addition the Court orders:

Dated: _______________

________________________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

4