Northern California Judges Rule in Labor and Employment Cases

While these are the characters of Final Fantasy VII, this
blog uses them to represent Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
and it's cousin the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act.  Photo Courtesy of Andrew Becraft.  

In Ou-Young v. Potter, a postal machinery maintenance man claims that the Postmaster has discriminated against him on the basis of race on a series of occasions resulting in his termination in July 2010.  The Postmaster argues that to pursue his complaint he must file a grievance with the EEO and, if unsatisfied file a complaint with the EEOC or a complaint in Federal District Court.  Since no action has yet been taken at the administrative level, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.  Judge Richard Seeborg agreed with the Postmaster and dismissed the case.

Shek v. California Nurses Association involves a nurse who was dismissed and claims his union did not properly handle his grievance.  As this blog has noted before, unions are subject to a very low standard of care.  For his part, Mr. Shek seeks reconsideration of a motion to dismiss his case with prejudice stating that he has located 1) an email detailing a supervisor's physical attack on him 2) evidence of ratification of his union contract and 3) his EEOC right to sue letter.  Magistrate Edward M. Chen denied the motion and stated that Mr. Shek had all of this information at the time his motion to dismiss was filed and he should have used it then.

In Olson v. Dias, the plaintiff pro se is suing the defendant pro se for lack of accommodations at his hotel in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The defendant, having not completed any discovery, moved for summary judgment stating that there is no evidence of injury and therefore no means of recovery.  The plaintiff did not respond to the motion.  Nonetheless, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the motion for summary judgment stating that there is no independent corroboration of the defendant's claims and therefore no basis for stating facts were undisputed.