Tabani v. IMS Associates, Ltd. et al
Filing
36
ORDER Denying 24 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 02/14/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
FAREEN TABANI,
Case No. 2:11-cv-00757-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,
10
ORDER
v.
11
12
IMS ASSOCIATES, LTD., et al.,
(Def.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
– dkt. no. 24)
Defendants.
13
14
15
I.
SUMMARY
16
Before the Court is Defendant Milne and McKenzie Associates, Ltd. d/b/a Internal
17
Medicine Specialists of Las Vegas’ (“IMS”) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. no.
18
24.) For reasons discussed below, the Motion is denied.
19
II.
BACKGROUND
20
Plaintiff Fareen Tabani was hired by Defendant IMS on or near July 13, 2010, as
21
an x-ray technician. As is custom, IMS provided Tabani with a copy of its employment
22
handbook, and Tabani signed a document acknowledging that she was aware of IMS’s
23
workplace policies and procedures. (Dkt. no. 24-A.) Among these policies, IMS required
24
employees who sought an absence from work to call or text message a supervisor the
25
morning before their shift begins to inform the supervisor of their impending absence.
26
(Dkt. no. 24-E.)
27
Tabani alleges that in mid-November, she informed Dana Brai, IMS office
28
manager, that she was pregnant. (Dkt. no. 29-A at ¶ 4.) Beginning in mid-December
1
2010, Tabani alleges that complications arose with her pregnancy which led to six
2
absences from work ─ three half-day absences and three full-day absences. (Dkt. nos.
3
24-B and 29-A at ¶¶ 4-6.) Tabani also missed one day of work on December 22, 2010,
4
due to street flooding. (Dkt. no. 24-B.)
5
On January 3, 2011, Tabani sent a text message to Brai informing Brai that she
6
would not attend work due to an emergency room visit related to her pregnancy. (Dkt.
7
no. 29-A.) About three hours later, Tabani sent a second text message to Brai stating
8
“They are admitting me.” (Id.) Tabani testified that she spoke with Brai on the telephone
9
to inform her that she had been admitted due to pregnancy-related complications, and
10
that she would call Brai back when her doctor readied her for release. (Dkt. no. 29-A at
11
¶ 6.)
12
Tabani continued her hospital stay until January 7, 2011. On the morning of
13
January 6, Tabani texted Brai that she was still in the hospital, and that she would call as
14
soon as the doctor saw her. (Dkt. no. 29-A.) Tabani did not receive a reply. On January
15
7, 2011, Tabani called Brai to let Brai know that she was to be released, but Brai
16
informed her that she was terminated. (Dkt. no. 29-A at ¶ 8.)
17
Tabani filed this suit on May 11, 2011, after receiving a Right to Sue letter from
18
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (See dkt. no. 1.) Tabani alleges that
19
IMS discriminated against her on the basis of sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
20
Rights Act of 1964. IMS filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. no. 24.)
21
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
22
The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no
23
dispute as to the facts before the court. Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 18
24
F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings,
25
the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show there is no
26
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
27
matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is “genuine”
28
if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could find for
2
1
the nonmoving party and a dispute is “material” if it could affect the outcome of the suit
2
under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).
3
Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, summary
4
judgment is not appropriate. Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.
5
1995). “The amount of evidence necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is
6
enough ‘to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at
7
trial.’” Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat’l
8
Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary
9
judgment motion, a court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most
10
favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793
11
F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986).
12
The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues
13
of material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). “In
14
order to carry its burden of production, the moving party must either produce evidence
15
negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim or defense or show that
16
the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its
17
ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210
18
F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000).
19
requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion to “set forth specific
20
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The
21
nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific
22
evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute
23
exists,” Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and “must do
24
more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
25
Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). “The
26
mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be
27
insufficient.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
28
///
Once the moving party satisfies Rule 56’s
3
1
IV.
DISCUSSION
2
Tabani brings a disparate treatment claim against IMS, alleging that she was
3
singled out for termination on account of her pregnancy. IMS argues that Tabani cannot
4
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact exists as to IMS’s liability under Title VII.
5
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on an
6
individual’s sex. 42 U.S.C. ¶ 2000e-2(a). “[D]iscrimination based on a woman’s
7
pregnancy is, on its face, discrimination because of her sex.” Newport News Shipbuilding
8
and Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 684 (1983). “A plaintiff in a Title VII case
9
must establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” Cordova v. State Farm Ins. Cos.,
10
124 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 1997). “If the plaintiff succeeds in doing so, then the
11
burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
12
employment decision.” Id. “If the defendant provides such a reason, then in order to
13
prevail, the plaintiff must demonstrate that this reason is pretextual.” Id.
14
A.
Prima Facie Case
15
In order to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, the plaintiff must
16
produce evidence that “give[s] rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Tex. Dep’t
17
of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 (1981). Where, as here, no evidence
18
of direct discriminatory intent is presented, a plaintiff may create a presumption of
19
discriminatory intent through the factors set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
20
411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994)
21
(citation omitted). The four prong McDonnell Douglas test requires a plaintiff show that:
22
(1) she is a member of a class protected by Title VII; (2) she was performing
23
satisfactorily; (3) she suffered an adverse employment decision; and (4) she was treated
24
differently from persons outside of her protected class. Id. “The requisite degree of
25
proof necessary to establish a prima facie case for Title VII . . . on summary judgment is
26
minimal and does not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence.”
27
Id.; see also Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Comt. Coll. Dist., 934 F.2d 1104, 1111 (9th
28
///
4
1
Cir.1991) (“[T]he amount [of evidence] that must be produced in order to create a prima
2
facie case is ‘very little.’”).
3
Although Tabani has not provided any direct evidence of discriminatory intent, she
4
does raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a prima facie case of discrimination.
5
The parties do not dispute Tabani’s status as a member of a protected class under Title
6
VII, and do not dispute that she suffered an adverse employment decision.
1.
7
Satisfactory Job Performance
8
The parties disagree over whether Tabani performed her job duties satisfactorily.
9
IMS argues that Tabani failed to execute her job responsibilities by violating employment
10
policy requiring her to inform her supervisor of her absences on January 4, 5 and 6,
11
2011. IMS points to phone records and Facebook screen captures which show that
12
during this time period, Tabani made numerous telephone calls and posted numerous
13
times on Facebook, suggesting that she was not incapacitated and had the ability to
14
inform her supervisor of her absence. (See dkt. nos. 24-J and 24-K.) In response,
15
Tabani argues that her failure to inform IMS of absences did not impugn her employment
16
performance. She argues that her text message and telephone call to Brai on January
17
3, 2011, sufficed until January 7, since she expressly told Brai that she was in the
18
hospital. Whatever the formal employment policy mandated, Tabani’s January 3, 2011,
19
communication to Brai about her pregnancy complication and admission to the hospital
20
satisfied her obligations to inform a supervisor of her absence. Tabani further argues
21
that her compliance with IMS absence policy during her previous seven absences
22
confirms her satisfactory employment performance, for it would be inexplicable for her to
23
suddenly neglect her duty to inform IMS supervisors when she had diligently done so in
24
the past. The Court must resolve this competing evidence in the light most favorable to
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
5
1
Tabani, the nonmoving party.1 See Kaiser Cement Corp., 793 F.2d at 1103. As a result,
2
a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Tabani performed her job
3
responsibilities satisfactorily.
4
2.
Treatment of Similarly Situated Employees
5
“In order to show that the ‘employees’ allegedly receiving more favorable
6
treatment are similarly situated (the fourth element necessary to establish a prima facie
7
case under Title VII), the individuals seeking relief must demonstrate, at the least, that
8
they are similarly situated to those employees in all material respects.” Moran v. Selig,
9
447 F.3d 748, 755 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). “[I]ndividuals are similarly situated
10
when they have similar jobs and display similar conduct.” See Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los
11
Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2003). The Second Circuit in McGuiness v. Lincoln
12
Hall, 263 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2001) (cited with approval by Aragon v. Republic Silver
13
State Disposal Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2002)) explained that in order to make a
14
minimal showing that a set of co-workers were similarly situated, “those employees must
15
have a situation sufficiently similar to plaintiff’s to support at least a minimal inference
16
that the difference of treatment may be attributable to discrimination.”
17
The proper analysis of this McDonnell Douglas factor requires a jury
18
determination into the nature of Tabani’s conduct, essentially the same finding that the
19
jury must make at stage two of the analysis. For many of the same reasons discussed
20
above, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the fourth factor. If Tabani is able to
21
demonstrate that she did, in fact, follow IMS absence policy and perform her job duties
22
satisfactorily, enough evidence in the record exists to suggest that others similarly
23
situated were treated more favorably.
24
includes all of those employees in the same level positions who complied with IMS
This class of similarly situated employees
25
26
27
28
1
IMS does not contemplate a scenario in which an employee might be performing
satisfactorily but nevertheless fails to adhere to its absence policy. But a jury might
reasonably conclude that the seriousness of Tabani’s medical excuse to the hospital
coupled with her January 3, 2011, notice to Brai excused her violation.
6
1
policy. Since evidence in the record, in the form of deposition testimony from other
2
employees, suggests that Tabani’s termination was unique, an inference of
3
discriminatory animus arises in light of her termination.
4
If, however, the jury finds that Tabani failed to adhere to IMS’s absence policy or
5
did not perform her job responsibilities in a satisfactory fashion, she might fail the fourth
6
element of the McDonnell Douglas test. In this scenario, a similarly situated employee ─
7
one that has performed unsatisfactorily, or one that did not follow the absence policy ─
8
either does not exist, or did not receive more favorable treatment than Tabani.2 Thus the
9
touchstone for whether Tabani’s Title VII claims can proceed is the jury’s determination
10
of her actions in light of IMS’s absence policy. The Court refuses to decide this question
11
of fact, where the parties provide compelling factual arguments in support of their
12
respective positions. Accordingly, questions of material fact exist as to whether Tabani
13
can make a prima facie showing of discrimination.
14
B.
Nondiscriminatory Reasons and Pretext Analysis
15
If Tabani’s prima facie showing of discrimination succeeds, the burden moves to
16
IMS to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Tabani’s termination. IMS has
17
offered only one nondiscriminatory reason for Tabani’s termination: her failure to adhere
18
to IMS’s absence policy. However, as discussed above, the jury may find that Tabani
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Ninth Circuit requires a demonstration of favorable treatment for similarly
situated employees not in plaintiff’s class. Moran, 447 F.3d at 755 (noting that a plaintiff
“seeking relief must demonstrate, at the least, that they are similarly situated to those
employees in all material respects”) (emphasis added). Here, at least one employee
testified to missing some periods of work due to complications or doctor’s visits arising
due to her pregnancy, but further testified that she complied with IMS’s absence policy.
(See dkt. no. 24-F at 14.) However, it is not clear whether any employee, pregnant or
not, failed to abide by the absence policy. Brai could not recall any such situation during
her tenure at IMS. (See dkt. no. 29-A at 80.) Therefore, it is difficult to determine
whether a class of similarly situated employees ─ i.e., those who failed to abide by the
absence policy, or any other IMS policy ─ were treated more favorably. Tabani would
find herself in an unfortunate “class of one,” where no comparator exists to determine
whether she was treated differently than others similarly situated. See Abdu-Brisson v.
Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 467-68 (2d Cir. 2001) (discussing situation where
plaintiff cannot show disparate treatment because no other similarly situated employees
existed, as in an employer with only one employee).
7
1
actually adhered to IMS policy notwithstanding her failure to call or text on the mornings
2
of January 5-7, 2011. In that scenario, judgment would be rendered for Tabani in light of
3
no other possible legitimate reasons for Tabani’s termination. See Reeves v. Sanderson
4
Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148 (2000) (“[A] plaintiff’s prima facie case,
5
combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification is
6
false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully
7
discriminated.”). The Court thus concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists as
8
to whether IMS had legitimate nondiscriminatory reason supporting its decision to
9
terminate Tabani’s employment. Accordingly, the Court needs not address the issue of
10
pretext.
11
V.
CONCLUSION
12
Tabani’s Title VII claim rises and falls with a factual determination as to her
13
adherence to IMS policy and whether she performed her job duties satisfactorily. As the
14
Court is unwilling to replace its judgment with that of a jury’s, IMS’s request for judgment
15
as a matter of law must be denied.
16
17
18
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant IMS’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (dkt. no. 24) is DENIED.
DATED THIS 14th day of February 2013.
19
20
21
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
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?