Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP

Good Law
122 F. Supp. 2d 1080·84 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 730·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17534
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 21, 2000CV00-01322(FMC)(AIJx)California7,100 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cooper, J.

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

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment: specifically, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed on August 25, 2000, and the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP (“LFHS”) filed on October 6, 2000. For the reasons stated and in the manner stated herein, Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. Uncontroverted Facts

The parties agree that the relevant facts in this case are undisputed. In September 1997, Donald Lagatree applied for and was offered a full-time legal secretary position with the LFHS. Lagatree was asked to report to work on September 16, 1997. On that day, Lagatree was presented with an offer letter which set forth the terms and conditions of his employment, “should [he] accept.” The offer letter also…

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.