Yeager v. Corr. Corp. of Am.
Decision Date | 07 May 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 1:12–cv–00162–AWI–JLT.,1:12–cv–00162–AWI–JLT. |
Citation | 944 F.Supp.2d 913 |
Parties | William YEAGER, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; and Does 1–5, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Helena Sunny Wise, Law Offices of Helena Sunny Wise, Burbank, CA, for Plaintiff.
Brandyn E. Stedfield, Paul M. Gleason, Gleason and Favarote LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.
Defendant Corrections Corporation of American (“Defendant” or “CCA”) has filed a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication in the alternative. For reasons discussed below, summary judgment shall be denied. Summary adjudication shall be granted in part and denied in part. Summary adjudication of the prayer for punitive damages shall be granted in favor of Defendant; summary adjudication of all other claims and causes of action shall be denied.
The Court refers the parties to previous orders for a complete chronology of the proceedings. On May 1, 2012, plaintiff William Yeager (“Plaintiff” or “Yeager”) filed his first amended complaint for damages against defendants CCA and Does 1–5, asserting causes of action for (1) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process under California Government Code §§ 12926.1(e) and 12940(n), (2) disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Cal. Gov.Code, § 12940 et seq.) and (3) FEHA retaliation. Plaintiff alleged as follows:
Plaintiff further alleged:
Plaintiff further alleged:
Plaintiff further alleged:
Plaintiff further alleged:
On February 15, 2013, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication in the alternative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, contending the absence of triable issues entitles it to judgment as a matter of law. On March 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendant's motion. Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiff's opposition on March 25, 2013.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of “informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the 3 pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); seeFed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). “Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only prove that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case.” In re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, 627 F.3d 376, 387 (2010) (citing Celotex, supra, at p. 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548). If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to present evidence establishing the existence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585–86, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must construe all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Even if the motion is unopposed, the movant is not absolved of the burden to show there are no genuine issues of material fact, Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 949–50 (9th Cir.1993), although the court may assume the movant's assertions of fact to be undisputed for the purposes of the motion and grant summary judgment if the facts and other supporting materials show the movant is entitled to it. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2), (3).
A. Plaintiff's first cause of action (failure to engage in good faith interactive process)—As a threshold matter, Defendant moves for summary adjudication of Plaintiff's first cause of action for failure to engage in the good faith interactive process pursuant to California Government Code sections 12926.1(e) and 12940(n). Section 12940, subdivision (n) provides it shall be an unlawful employment practice for employers “to fail to engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with the employee ... to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee ... with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition.” Cal. Gov.Code, § 12940, subd. (n). Section 12926.1, subdivision (e) provides, “The Legislature affirmsthe importance of the interactive process between the ... employee and the employer in determining a reasonable accommodation, as this requirement has been articulated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in its interpretive guidance of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Cal. Gov.Code, § 12926.1, subd. (e). Under this cause of action, Plaintiff, incorporating previous allegations by reference, alleges Defendant violated its statutory obligation to “engage in a good faith interactive process to achieve a reasonable accommodation of employees with ... medical ailments and known disabling conditions.” Defendant now contends summary adjudication must be granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No.: 19CV1195-GPC(WVG)
... ... committed, authorized or ratified an act of malice, oppression or fraud to create a genuine issue of material fact on punitive damages." Yeager v. Corr. Corp. of Am. , 944 F. Supp. 2d 913, 931 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Because the Court denies summary judgment on the claims for disability ... ...
-
Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.
... ... Mot. at 2 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). In particular, Gate ... of identifying an accommodation that allows the employee to perform the job effectively." Yeager v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 944 F.Supp.2d 913, 919 (E.D.Cal.2013). To prevail on a section 12940(n) ... ...
-
Elliott v. QF Circa 37, LLC
... ... to trial with the attendant unwarranted consumption of public and private resources." Celotex Corp ... v ... Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986); id ... at 327. Summary judgment is appropriate "if ... , oppression or fraud to create a genuine issue of material fact on punitive damages." Yeager v ... Corr ... Corp ... of Am ., 944 F. Supp. 2d 913, 931 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Here, Defendants have ... ...
-
Salgado v. IQVIA, Inc.
... ... See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A fact is material when, ... of identifying an accommodation that allows the employee to perform the job effectively." Yeager v. Corr. Corp. of Am. , 944 F. Supp. 2d 913, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Whether the employer engages in ... ...