Sarro

Sarro v. City of Sacramento

Good Law
78 F. Supp. 2d 1057·1999 WL 1258898·81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1142·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19589
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 22, 1999CIV.S-98-1498 FCD/PANCalifornia4,579 words

Opinion

Opinion

Damrell, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Barbara A. Sarro initially brought this action alleging sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (“Title VII”), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12920 et seq. (“FEHA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Defendant City of Sacramento (“City”) moved for summary judgment. The City’s motion was initially heard on August 6, 1999. By memorandum and order filed August 9, 1999, the court granted the City’s motion as to Sarro’s § 1983 cause of action and continued the motion as to Sarro’s sexual harassment cause of action to allow Sarro additional time to obtain evidence as to whether the City took “adequate remedial measures” as required under Yamaguchi v. United States Dep’t of the Air Force, 109 F.3d 1475, 1482 (9th Cir.1997). During oral argument on August 6, 1999, Sarro, through her counsel, represented to the court that she had not brought a claim for retaliation. The court’s memorandum and order filed August 9, 1999 noted the representation, and accordingly, did not address retaliation. Because the court finds that Sarro is estopped from…

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.