Cordova

Cordova v. State Farm Insurance Companies

Good Law
124 F.3d 1145·97 Daily Journal DAR 11671·71 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,991·74 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1377·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 23555
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 8, 1997No. 96-15867California2,484 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hawkins, J.

Denise Cordova (“Cordova”), a former claims representative for State Farm Insurance Company (“State Farm”), appeals the district court’s summary judgment disposition of her Title VII action alleging she was denied a position as a State Farm trainee agent on account of her national origin and sex. We reverse.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1996). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Denise Cordova, a Mexiean-Ameriean woman, was employed as a claims representative off and on by State Farm for five years. After five years, she applied to become a State Farm trainee agent, a position *1147 in a two-year training program required to become a State Farm agent.

Agency Manager John Raker (“Raker”) was responsible for selecting the trainee agent. After accepting numerous applications, he narrowed the field to four individuals — Brian LaBuff (“LaBuff’), a Native…

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.