Kirbyson

Kirbyson v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co.

Good Law
795 F. Supp. 2d 930·2011 WL 2446295·24 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1612·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64955
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 17, 2011Case 09-3990 SCCalifornia8,594 words

Opinion

Opinion

Conti, J.

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, filed by Defendant United Steel Workers, International Union Local 5 (“the USW”) and Defendant Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (“Tesoro”) (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF Nos. 73 (“USW Mot.”), 75 (“Tesoro Mot.”). Both motions are fully briefed. ECF Nos. 76 (“Opp’n to USW Mot.”), 78 (“Opp’n to Tesoro Mot.”), 83 (“USW Reply”), 86 (“Tesoro Reply”). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the USW’s Motion and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Tesoro’s Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

This case involves Tesoro’s termination of Plaintiffs employment and the USW’s subsequent handling of Plaintiffs grievance against Tesoro. Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed.

Plaintiff joined the U.S. Air Force (“USAF”) in 1994, and transitioned into the Air Force Reserve in 1999. Second Hewitt Decl. ¶ 3 Ex. A (“Second Kirbyson Deck”) ¶ 2 Plaintiff worked as an oil refinery operator for Tesoro. Id. On January 5, 2005, Plaintiff was recalled to active duty, and Tesoro…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.