Jordan v. Georgia-Pacific Gypsum LLC
Filing
34
ORDER granting 28 Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this court's order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27 ) be, and the same hereby is, VACATED. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that defendant's 23 motion for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. .Because no claims remain, the clerk of court is INSTRUCTED to enter judgment in favor of defendant and close this case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/27/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
KARL M. JORDAN,
8
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
9
10
Case No.2:22-CV-1732 JCM (EJY)
v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC GYPSUM LLC,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is defendant Georgia-Pacific Gypsum LLC’s motion for
14
reconsideration. (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff Karl Jordan filed a response (ECF No. 29), to which
15
defendant replied. (ECF No. 32). For the reasons stated below, the court grants defendant’s
16
motion.
17
I.
Background
18
This action arises out of alleged employment discrimination practices. Plaintiff worked
19
for defendant as a production supervisor until his termination on July 15, 2021. (See ECF No. 23).
20
In relevant part, plaintiff alleges that he was subject to a hostile work environment after a
21
crewmember made racially charged comments about the January 6 attack on the Capitol. (See
22
ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint alleged three causes of action: (1) discrimination, (2) hostile
23
work environment, and (3) retaliation. (Id.).
24
Defendant moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 23). This court granted in part and
25
denied in part defendant’s motion, dismissing the discrimination and retaliation claim. (ECF No.
26
27). However, it found that there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to the hostile work
27
28
1
environment claim. (Id.).1 Defendant now moves for this court to reconsider its order finding that
2
plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim survived summary judgment. (ECF No. 28).
3
II.
Legal Standard
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order[;]”
5
however, “the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality
6
and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)
7
(internal quotations omitted). A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly
8
unusual circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
9
Thus, the Ninth Circuit has provided that “[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district
10
court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
11
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School
12
Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion
13
to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”
14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
15
III.
Discussion
16
Having reconsidered its previous order, the court finds that plaintiff’s hostile work
17
environment claim cannot survive summary judgment. To establish a claim for hostile work
18
environment under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he was subjected to verbal or physical
19
conduct because of his race, (2) the conduct was unwelcomed, and (3) the conduct was sufficiently
20
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment and create an abusive work
21
environment. Manatt v. Bank of Am., N.A., 339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003).
22
Defendant’s motion to reconsider argues that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case
23
for a hostile work environment. (ECF No. 28 at 5). Specifically, defendant contends that the
24
alleged racially motivated comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive and did not alter the
25
terms of plaintiff’s employment. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff opposes, arguing that defendant fails to meet
26
its burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 and reiterates the same arguments made in its motion for
27
28
The court clarifies that its order (ECF No. 27) erroneously dismissed plaintiff’s cause of
action for hostile work environment.
1
-2-
1
summary judgment. (ECF No. 29 at 2).
2
“[A]ll the circumstances, including the ‘frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its
3
severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and
4
whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance’” inform whether an
5
environment is sufficiently hostile. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)
6
(quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)). “[S]imple teasing, offhand comments,
7
and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) are not sufficient to create an actionable claim.”
8
Reynaga v. Roseburg Forest Prods., 847 F.3d 678, 687 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks
9
and citation omitted).
10
The court finds that defendant met its burden of demonstrating that plaintiff failed to make
11
a showing sufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
12
Plaintiff, as the non-moving party, then failed to produce competent evidence that shows a genuine
13
issue for trial. Id. at 324.
14
Here, no reasonable jury could conclude that the “all lives matter” comments made over a
15
five-month period are severe or pervasive. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634,
16
643 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Caldwell v. Washington, 278 Fed. Appx. 773, 775 (9th Cir. 2008).
17
The comments were made during isolated incidents, occurring over five months, and plaintiff has
18
failed to present evidence or even allege that these comments were “extremely serious.” See
19
Reynaga, 847 F.3d at 687.
20
Plaintiff also failed to present evidence or allege that the comments themselves altered the
21
conditions of his work environment. Therefore, plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim cannot
22
survive summary judgment.
23
IV.
Conclusion
24
Accordingly,
25
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendant’s motion to
26
reconsider (ECF No. 28) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
27
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this court’s order granting in part and denying in part
28
defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) be, and the same hereby is, VACATED.
-3-
1
2
3
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
23) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
Because no claims remain, the clerk of court is INSTRUCTED to enter judgment in favor
of defendant and close this case.
5
6
7
8
DATED January 27, 2025.
_________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?