Paige

Paige v. California

Good Law
102 F.3d 1035·96 Daily Journal DAR 15301·80 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 587·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33218·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9285
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 20, 1996No. 95-56669California4,065 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

Appellants, the State of California, the California Highway Patrol, 1 the California Busi *1037 ness, Transportation and Housing Agency, Maurice Hannigan, Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, and Edward Gomez, collectively referred to as “defendants,” appeal from the district court’s issuance of an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Jeff D. Paige, and the class he represents (the plaintiffs), and from the district court’s orders certifying a class, denying the defendants partial summary judgment, and granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The district court’s orders were issued in an action Paige brought alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. We conclude that we have jurisdiction over the appeals from the class certification and the partial summary judgment order in favor of the plaintiffs, as well as over the appeal from the interim injunction. While in this opinion we affirm the district court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over the class claims — because those claims do not exceed the scope of the charges filed by plaintiff Paige with the EEOC and the California Department of Fair…

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.