From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Delaney v. SimplexGrinnell L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
Nov 29, 2011
No. CV10-5103 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV10-5103 MEJ

11-29-2011

COMERLIS DELANEY, Plaintiff, v. SIMPLEXGRINNELL L.P., Defendant(s).


QUESTIONS FOR DECEMBER 1, 2011 HEARING

To assist the Court in its consideration of Defendant's pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #22), the Court issues the following questions for the parties to address at the December 1, 2011 hearing:

1. Both parties assume that the legal standard that the Court should apply in evaluating Plaintiff's Motion is the three-stage burden shifting analysis from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Neither of the parties, however, address the Ninth Circuit's rulings in Bachelder v. America West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001), and Xin Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003), and their application to Plaintiff's second cause of action under the FMLA and the CFRA. How do these cases affect the legal standard that the Court should apply?

2. Can Plaintiff's first cause of action (FEHA) be evaluated under the same legal standard as Plaintiff's second cause of action (FMLA/CFRA)?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Maria-Elena James

Chief United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Delaney v. SimplexGrinnell L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
Nov 29, 2011
No. CV10-5103 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)
Case details for

Delaney v. SimplexGrinnell L.P.

Case Details

Full title:COMERLIS DELANEY, Plaintiff, v. SIMPLEXGRINNELL L.P., Defendant(s).

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California

Date published: Nov 29, 2011

Citations

No. CV10-5103 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)