Maher v. City of Fresno, No. 1:2008cv00050 - Document 76 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum Decision And ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Adjudication 63 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 9/3/2009. Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED on the part of her claim that the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is an "education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" under Title IX. Plaintiff shall submit a form of order consistent with, and within five (5) days following electronic service of, this memorandum decision. Oral argument on this motion set for September 14, 2009, is VACATED. (Scrivner, E)

Download PDF

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MICHELLE MAHER 08-CV-00050-OWW-SMS Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 9 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION CITY OF FRESNO, Defendant. 10 11 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Before the court is a motion for summary adjudication filed by Plaintiff Michelle Maher ( Plaintiff ). Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication on the issue of whether the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is an education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance for purposes of Title IX. Defendant City of Fresno ( Defendant ) does not oppose the motion. The following background facts are taken from the parties submissions in connection with the motion and other documents on file in this case.1 22 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 "A district court does not, of course, make findings of fact' in ruling on a summary judgment motion. Findings of fact are made on the basis of evidentiary hearings and usually involve credibility determinations." Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) ("As this case was decided on summary judgment, there have not yet been factual findings by a judge or jury . . . ."); Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1486 (11th Cir. 1996). 1 II. BACKGROUND 1 The 2 City of Fresno Fire Department is a subdivision of 7.)2 3 Defendant City of Fresno, a public entity. (Doc. 15 at 4 Plaintiff applied for employment as a firefighter recruit to the 5 City of Fresno Fire Department in 2005. (Id.) 6 accepted into the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy and, 7 on October 10, 2005, became a conditional employee of the City of 8 Fresno working as a firefighter recruit. (Id.; Doc. 69 at 1-2.) 9 Plaintiff s ultimate employment was conditioned on her successful 10 completion of the probationary period and testing at the conclusion 11 of that probationary period. Plaintiff was On December 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed a state-court complaint 12 13 in the Fresno County 14 contains four claims: (1) discrimination under the California 15 Government 16 environment 17 discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 18 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a); and (4) discrimination in violation of public 19 policy. 20 court action to federal court, and Plaintiff has not since amended 21 her complaint. 22 forced her to resign from the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire 23 Academy and refused to reinstate her based at least in part on the 24 unlawful consideration of her gender, parental status, and primary 25 care-giving status in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1681. Code § under Superior 12940; Court. (2) California sexual Plaintiff s complaint harassment/hostile Government Code § 12940; In her Title IX claim, Plaintiff alleges Defendant 27 2 (3) On January 10, 2008, Defendant removed Plaintiff s state- 26 28 work Document Doc. 15 is the Scheduling Conference Order. 2 1 III. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION STANDARD 2 A party claiming relief, such as Plaintiff, may move for 3 summary judgment on all or part of the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 56(a) (emphasis added). The standards and procedures for granting 5 partial summary judgment, also known as summary adjudication, are 6 the same as those for summary judgment. Mora v. Chem-Tronics, 7 Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1200 (S.D. Cal. 1998). 8 is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure 9 materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine 10 issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to 11 judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 12 13 Under Title IX, [n]o person in the United States shall, on 14 the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 15 benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education 16 program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 20 17 U.S.C. 1681(a) (emphasis added). 18 adjudication on the issue of whether the City of Fresno Fire 19 Department Fire Academy is an education program or activity 20 receiving Federal financial assistance under Title IX. 21 Plaintiff moves for summary Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff s 22 motion (Doc. 72). In its statement of non-opposition, Defendant 23 states that it will not oppose the Court s finding that the 24 [Defendant] CITY OF FRESNO is an education institution within the 25 meaning of Title IX, 20 U.S.C 1681 because the CITY OF FRESNO 26 responded to Requests for Admissions to that [e]ffect. (Doc. 72 at 27 28 3 1 2.)3 2 motion stating that it shall be established in this litigation, 3 that the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire Academy is an 4 education 5 assistance 6 liability. (Doc. 73 at 1.) 7 which 8 Department had received federal financial assistance and that the 9 City Defendant submitted its own proposed order on Plaintiff s program for Plaintiff of Fresno or activity purposes of Defendant s federal alleged financial Title IX In response to requests for admission propounded, Fire receiving Defendant Department Fire admitted Academy that is an its Fire education 10 institution within the meaning of Title IX. (See Doc. 69, Ex. B at 11 13.) 12 with her motion for summary adjudication. Plaintiff submitted these discovery responses in connection 13 Based on the parties submissions, it is undisputed, and there 14 is no triable issue, that the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire 15 Academy is an education program or activity receiving Federal 16 financial assistance under Title IX for purposes of Defendant s 17 alleged Title IX liability. V. CONCLUSION 18 19 Plaintiff s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED on the 20 part of her claim that the City of Fresno Fire Department Fire 21 Academy is an education program or activity receiving Federal 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 In its statement of non-opposition, Defendant suggests that Plaintiff s statement of undisputed facts is not allowed under Local Rule 56-2. This purported rule, Local Rule 56-2, does not exist. The applicable local rule, Local Rule 56-260(a), specifically requires a party, such as Plaintiff, to file a statement of undisputed facts in connection with a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. Plaintiff s separate statement of undisputed facts is proper under Local Rule 56-260(a). 28 4 1 financial assistance under Title IX. Plaintiff shall submit a form of order consistent with, and 2 3 within five (5) days 4 memorandum 5 September 14, 2009, is VACATED. decision. following Oral electronic argument on service this motion 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: 9i274f September 3, 2009 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 of, set this for

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.