The average age of the twelve Tel Rep hires was 13 SUF 70; Pls. Thus, the hired Tel Reps were, on average, approximately nine years 16 younger than plaintiffs. Also, eleven of the twelve Tel Reps were "new hires," despite a general 17 hiring policy of "look[ing] at internal candidates first. Hardy Decl. Each was over the age of forty. Hardy 23 Decl. Hardy had 25 thirty-nine years' experience with YP, had previously held a substantially similar job with YP for 26 eleven years, and had received fifty-two awards in that role.
Riddick had 27 approximately twenty-four years' experience with YP and five years' management experience. After Hardy submitted her application and passed the initial stage of the 4 1 1 recruiting process, YP cancelled the position. SUF 53; Kristiansen Dep. Bis Decl. B MacDonald Resume. Lynn applied for the ASM position. She was forty-five years 14 old at the time. Lynn had the basic qualifications for the position.
She had eighteen years of experience with YP, including six years in a 16 managerial role. Although YP invited Lynn to 19 interview with Bruce Bis for the position, and she did interview, she was not selected. The parties dispute whether these hires were more 23 qualified than Lynn. Discriminatory Comments 25 Plaintiffs base their discrimination claims in part on the comments of Larry Lacko, 26 who managed YP's staffing department and recruited employees for at least two of the positions 27 at issue.
According to YP, a recruiter 5 1 1 may initially screen applications, work with the hiring manager to select candidates for 2 interviews, and inform the applicants of YP's final decision. As Riddick 3 avers, Larry Lacko told her in that "we want younger workers" who, in his opinion, were 4 the "best of the best," and that "we are not looking for women because women were [sic] not fit 5 for the job.
YP 11 moves for summary judgment on all claims. Liberty Lobby, Inc. Catrett, U. The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, which "must establish that there is a 21 genuine issue of material fact. Zenith Radio Corp. In carrying their burdens, both parties must "cit[e] to particular parts of 23 materials in the record. However, it is appropriate to rely on 27 cases decided before the amendment took effect, as "[t]he standard for granting summary judgment remains unchanged.
Moreover, "the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material 3 fact. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing 4 law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Matsushita, U. Mineta, F. Cities Serv.
Block v. City of L. The party seeking admission of evidence "bears the 15 burden of proof of admissibility. Ronan Eng'g Co. If the opposing party objects to the proposed evidence, the party seeking admission must 17 direct the district court to "authenticating documents, deposition testimony bearing on attribution, 18 hearsay exceptions and exemptions, or other evidentiary principles under which the evidence in 19 question could be deemed admissible.
However, courts are sometimes "much more lenient" with the affidavits and 21 documents of the party opposing summary judgment.
- Eastern District of California, caed-2:2012-cv-02033!
- idaho state police background check!
- AT&T company profile.
- Apartamentos felipe vi madrid hotellook.
- north light book club phone number;
- Schedule A for Line #11AI.
Scharf v. A trial may be necessary "if the judge has doubt as to the wisdom of terminating 27 the case before trial.
- RIDDICK v. AT&T.
- AT$T Weekly Paid Employees Transition Payment!?
- birth certificate from lebanon pa.
- divorce in california mens services.
- Essential things for a men..
- Past Newsletters — Daniel Njoo?
Signal Corp. MCI Telecommunications Corp. Case Co. This may be 7 1 1 the case "even in the absence of a factual dispute.
June 19, quoting Black, 3 22 F. United Parcel Serv. See Kristiansen Decl. The court need not reach this objection because Kristiansen's 10 statements relate to a Supervisor's Assistant SA position, which is not considered here. See 15 Strass Decl. Strass, ECF No. Plaintiffs contend Strass lacks 16 sufficient personal knowledge because she may not have personally retrieved the data. Strass does not specifically say another person obtained the elink data. The 23 court finds Strass has sufficient firsthand knowledge to generate and analyze the exhibits attached 24 to her declaration.
Past Newsletters — Daniel Njoo
Simpson's declaration, in 3 which he sets out calculations of YP employees' mean and median ages. See Simpson Decl. Simpson, ECF No. Plaintiffs argue Simpson's calculations lack 5 foundation because they rely on data whose trustworthiness cannot be verified. As Kristiansen declares, "I personally created this list from a spreadsheet 11 of employee data I received from Michelle Abt in early "; Kristiansen says she knows the 12 data are correct because she was responsible for administering the relocation.
Resumes and CVs
Abt Decl. Kristiansen Decl. Kristiansen obtained some of this data from YP's personnel 18 database called ADP that stores employee information.
These custodians of records' 19 declarations lay sufficient foundation for Exhibits 9D and 9E. Thus, Simpson's calculations may 20 rely on them. Plaintiffs' attorney does the same. See Pairavi Decl. If either attorney were to 24 offer his testimony at trial, he may need to withdraw from his representation under the advocate- witness rule. ABA Model Rule 3. At this stage, because the court finds it unlikely 26 either attorney will need to act as witness at trial, withdrawal is unwarranted.
United States v. Prantil, F. They are 28 incorrect. Smith-Emery Co. See Reyes Decl. Strike, ECF No. Even if such disclosure 18 were required, plaintiffs have not justified exclusion under Rule See Fed. App'x , 9th Cir. This is especially true here, where 23 defendants gave plaintiffs the data underlying both declarations during discovery.
YP's Objections 2 YP objects to numerous portions of plaintiffs' and plaintiffs' counsel's 3 declarations. In each instance, YP objects on grounds of hearsay or lack of personal knowledge.tax-marusa.com/order/kekocafy/iphone-7-plus-localisation-toujours-active.php
Bookmarks for K.Bhattacharyya
YP's hearsay objections are premature, because the court 7 may consider evidence so long as it is "admissible at trial," Fraser, F. The court rejects YP's 10 personal knowledge objections as "redundant" and "unnecessary" because they merely restate the 11 summary judgment standard itself. Reliance 13 Stand. Life Ins. In any event, the court does 14 not rely on most of the allegedly objectionable statements.