Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. C-88-1467 MHP.,C-88-1467 MHP. |
| Citation | 803 F. Supp. 259 |
| Parties | Nancy J. STENDER, Diane Skillsky, Julie Valentine-Dunn, Reba Barber-Money, Irma Hernandez, Anita Martinez and Jon Gold on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LUCKY STORES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Brad Seligman, Jocelyn D. Larkin, Donna M. Ryu, Saperstein, Seligman & Mayeda, Oakland, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Kirby Wilcox, Kathleen V. Fisher, James E. Boddy, Jr., Portia R. Moore, Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs have brought this class action against Lucky Stores, Inc. on behalf of Black and female employees working in retail stores within Lucky's Northern California Food Division. Plaintiffs allege discrimination on the basis of race and sex in initial job placement, allocation of work hours, movement of part-time employees to full-time positions, and promotions. Claims are brought pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code §§ 12900-12996.
The court hereby enters its findings of fact and conclusions of law as to plaintiffs' claims. To the extent that any findings of fact are included under conclusions of law they shall be deemed findings of fact, and to the extent that any conclusions of law are included under findings of fact they shall be deemed conclusions of law. This order incorporates all of the previous orders of this court which are cited herein.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamble v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.
...that managers had unchecked discretion to make employment decisions using vague, subjective, unvalidated criteria.3 For example, in Stender , the court determined that "sex discrimination was the standard operating procedure at Lucky with respect to placement, promotion, movement to full-ti......
-
Schallop v. New York State Dept. of Law
...decisions are made based on variable, subjective criteria, this approach is appropriate under Title VII. See Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 803 F.Supp. 259, 335 (N.D.Cal.1992). After identifying the challenged practice, a plaintiff then bears the burden of offering "statistical evidence of ......
-
Karnes v. SCI Colorado Funeral Services, Inc., 96-1478
...(N.D.Ill.1996) (applying the preponderance standard to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982); Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 803 F.Supp. 259, 324 (N.D.Cal.1992) ("There appears to be no distinction between the standard for establishing a right to punitive damages [in Title VII c......
-
Hemmings v. Tidyman's Inc.
...of promotion or termination might be compared against benchmark pool of employees who are not `affected.'"); Stender v. Lucky Stores, 803 F.Supp. 259, 295-98 (N.D.Cal.1992) (upholding the statistical analysis based entirely on employer workforce data where the plaintiffs challenged the plac......
-
Sex discrimination
...v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 628 F. Supp. 1264 (N.D. Ill. 1986), aff ’d , 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988). But see Stender v. Lucky Stores , 803 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Although the lower courts have been wrestling with the issue for decades, the Supreme Court never has clarified the circu......
-
Sex Discrimination
...EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F. Supp. 1264 (N.D. Ill. 1986), aff’d, 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988). But see Stender v. Lucky Stores, 803 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Cal. Although the lower courts have been wrestling with the issue for decades, the Supreme Court never has clarified the circumstanc......
-
Keeping women out of the executive suite: the courts' failure to apply Title VII scrutiny to upper-level jobs.
...that plaintiffs present anecdotal evidence of discrimination to refute the lack of interest argument). But see Stender v. Lucky Stores, 803 F. Supp. 259, 319 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (noting that discriminatory intent may be inferred from statistical evidence). (109) See, e.g., Sears, 839 F.2d at 3......
-
Employment
...impact and must prove that an overriding legitimate business purpose makes such a practice necessary); but see Stender v. Lucky Stores , 803 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (employee may rebut by showing alternate employment practice that does not cause disparate impact and that employer refu......