London

London v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Good Law

619 F. Supp. 2d 854·2009 WL 1514302·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46835

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 28, 2009C 07-05148 JWCalifornia4,475 words

Opinion

Ware, J.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Constance London (“Plaintiff’) brings this diversity action against Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Defendant” or “Sears”), alleging, inter alia, violations of the California Pair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t.Code §§ 12900, et seq., and wrongful termination. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant improperly terminated her after she purchased baby clothes for her great granddaughter using her employee discount card.

Presently before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court conducted a hearing on March 16, 2009. Based on the papers submitted to date and oral argument, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Undisputed Facts

On February 28, 2001, Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a sales associate; she was 68 years old. Plaintiff worked for Defendant for six years, and was always paid on a commission basis. (London Depo. at 55-56.) Through her job as a sales associate,…

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.