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)

Download PDF
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

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?