Marasco v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents

3 Citing cases

  1. Holloway v. Eastbridge Workforce Sols.

    No. CV-18-00795-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Mar. 5, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    ("Even when construed with the utmost liberality, Plaintiff's EEOC charge simply does not contain allegations of sex discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation."); Marasco v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. CV-12-01750-PHX-FJM, 2013 WL 4029167, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2013) (finding plaintiff's allegations reasonably related to the allegations plaintiff made in the charge he submitted to the EEOC and noting that the alleged basis of the discrimination was the same). Accordingly, Count 2A is dismissed.

  2. Guthrie v. Hurwitz

    CASE NO. 1:18-CV-282 AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2018)

    But that is not how the Ninth Circuit instructs the court to evaluate Mr. Caldwell's workplace harassment claim. The court looks at the totality of the circumstances, from the perspective of a reasonable victim.") (citations omitted); Marasco v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 2013 WL 4029167, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2013) (finding hostile work environment sufficiently pervasive where the complaint alleged plaintiff "was personally called derogatory names used for Italians on multiple occasions throughout his employment . . . .") (emphasis added); Jaroslawsky, 2013 WL 1287431, at *4 (denying motion to dismiss on hostile-work-environment claim, where supervisor "made continuous threats to terminate or to relocate her employment, denied her requests flex hours but granted similar requests to others, subjected her to continuous harassment, humiliation, ridicule, and isolation, and [] changed and eliminated most of her work assignments while denying her any new work assignments.") (emphasis added). Further, the 1AC adds context to these kinds of non-discrete acts by describing how Estrada rescinded her approved schedule requests and unilaterally altered her schedule to interfere with her school responsibilities (and did not similarly do so for male employees), refused to approve overtime for her (despite ap

  3. Wyatt v. City of Burlingame

    Case No. 16-cv-02681-DMR (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2017)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that since Plaintiff's DFEH Complaint was filed more than 300 days after her constructive discharge, her ADA claims from her termination were time-barred

    In examining the EEOC's actual investigation, the court may consider not only what a plaintiff tells the EEOC investigator, but also what the EEOC communicates to the plaintiff about his or her charge. For example, in Marasco v. Ariz. Bd. Of Regents, No. CV-12-01750-PHX-FJM, 2013 WL 4029167, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 8, 2013), the district court concluded that plaintiff properly exhausted his retaliation claim because, in addition to the charge itself, the plaintiff told the EEOC investigator on several occasions that he complained to the defendant's human resources department and had asked whether his ethnicity was a factor in his transfer to a new department. The plaintiff also told the EEOC investigator that he felt he was unable to further his career while working for the defendant.