White v. Community Health Awareness Council

Filing 34

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 30 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. 9/12/2017 hearing vacated. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MARY WHITE,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.5:16-cv-03362-HRL
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
COMMUNITY HEALTH AWARENESS
COUNCIL,

Re: Dkt. No. 30

Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff Mary White sues defendant Community Health Awareness Council (CHAC) for

19

disability discrimination and related violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the

20

California Fair Employment and Housing Act; age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in

21

Employment Act, and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. All parties have

22

expressly consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally adjudicated by the

23

undersigned. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.

24

Now before the court is CHAC’s motion for summary judgment on all claims for relief.

25

The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument, and the September 12,

26

2017 hearing is vacated. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding

27

papers, the court rules as follows:

28

In her opposition papers, plaintiff confirms that she is no longer pursuing her claim for age

1

discrimination. Accordingly, that claim is dismissed.

2

As for the remaining claims and issues in dispute, the court concludes that there are

3

genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment and that more than one inference

4

can be drawn even where there may be undisputed facts. Such matters are for a jury to decide, and

5

defendant’s motion for summary judgment therefore is denied.1
SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: September 8, 2017

8
9
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

At this time, the court expresses no opinion as to an alleged spoliation issue raised by plaintiff.
That matter is not properly before this court on this motion.
2