Velez

Velez v. Roche

Good Law
335 F. Supp. 2d 1022·2004 WL 2095614·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18551
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 30, 2004C-02-0337-EMCCalifornia11,762 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS MATTER OF LAW OR NEW TRIAL; DENYING REQUEST FOR REMITTITUR (Docket No. 207)

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions as well as the argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant Air Force’s (“AF”) motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) or new trial as well as its request for remittitur.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Pauline Velez filed suit against the AF, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender. In her complaint, Dr. Velez asserted four causes of action: (1) gender discrimination based on disparate treatment, (2) gender discrimination based on hostile work environment, (3) failure to prevent gender discrimination, and (4) pregnancy discrimination. The AF moved for summary judgment which the Court granted in part and denied in part. See Docket Nos. 76, 117 (orders of 12/10/03 and 1/7/04). The summary judgment order left for trial only the disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. In the summary judgment order, the Court rejected the AF’s argument that there was no genuine dispute that it was not Dr. Velez’s employer…

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.