Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-2171-JLK.
October 23, 2009
ORDER
This Title VII employment discrimination case is before me on Defendant Sports Authority's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16). After careful consideration of the issues raised, the parties' briefs and the legal authority cited therein, I DENY the Motion. The facts marshaled by Plaintiff in support of her claims, viewed in the light most favorable to her as the nonmovant, are sufficient to raise an inference that she was discharged not because she missed deadlines or otherwise performed her job poorly, but because of her sex/pregnancy. The facts are also sufficient to support an inference that Defendant's actions were in retaliation for Plaintiff's efforts to seek and enforce what she in good faith believed to be her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act.
While Defendant's rebuttal evidence is substantive and raises questions regarding Plaintiff's credibility, its relative persuasiveness is appropriately considered not by a trial judge on summary judgment, but by a jury whose primary function is to make determinations about people's conduct based on objective standards. See generally, A. Miller, The Pretrial Rush to Judgment: Are the "Litigation Explosion," "Liability Crisis," and Efficiency Clichés Eroding our Day in Court and Jury Trial Commitments? 78 N.Y.U. Law. R. 982, 1132 (June 2003) (consideration of objective standards of credibility, reasonableness and state of mind are "matters historically considered at the core province of jurors"). In my view, however, both sides bear risks in proceeding to trial, as much will turn on a jury's assessment of various players' credibility.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. This matter will be set for a forthwith Pretrial Conference by separate Minute Order. In the interim, if the parties wish to reconvene settlement negotiations with Magistrate Watanabe, they should contact his chambers to request a setting.