Allen

Allen v. Pacific Bell

Good Law
212 F. Supp. 2d 1180·2002 WL 1628989·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17768
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 22, 2002CIV.01-04017 DTCalifornia11,723 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tevrizian, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS PACIFIC BELL AND SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I.Background

A. Factual Summary

This action was originally brought by Plaintiff Clarence Allen (“Plaintiff’) on his own behalf and as a representative of a class against Defendants Pacific Bell (“Pacific Bell”) and SBC Communications (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff asserts the following claims in the Third Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint:

1. Disability discrimination in violation of FEHA, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a);

2. Disability discrimination in violation of ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 ;

3. Age discrimination in violation of FEHA, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12941;

4. Age discrimination in violation of ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 ;

5.Discrimination for taking leave in violation of CFRA, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2.

The following facts are undisputed

Nature of Pacific Bell’s Business

Pacific Bell provides telephone service to business and residential customers throughout California. To accomplish that goal, Pacific Bell employs approximately 45,000 employees who are organized and assigned to dozens of different job classifications, each with different…

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.