Pinder

Pinder v. Employment Development Department

Good Law
227 F. Supp. 3d 1123·2017 WL 56863·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1732
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 2017No. 2:13-cv-00817-TLN-DBCalifornia14,866 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nunley, J.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Employment Development Department (“EDD”), Richard Rogers and David Derks’s (collectively hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment or, alternatively, Summary Adjudication. (ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff Frank Pinder (“Plaintiff’) opposes Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 58.) Defendants have filed a reply. (ECF No. 60.) The Court has carefully considered the arguments raised by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, alternatively, Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff is an African American male. (PL’s Resp. to Defs.’ separate statement of undisputed material facts, ECF No. 58-1 at ¶ 1.) On or about January 4, 2010, Plaintiff began working for EDD as a System Software Specialist III Supervisor for the Business Applications Services Group. (ECF No. 58-1 at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff supervised a staff of approximately 20 people. (See *1129 Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s separate statement of undisputed material facts, ECF No. 60-3 at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges that he received no “complaints” and was not otherwise “counseled about [his]…

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.