Andrew Mattioda v. Jim Bridenstine
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANDREW MATTIODA, Case No. 20-cv-03662-SVK Plaintiff,
ORDER ON NASA’S MOTION FOR
v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
JIM BRIDENSTINE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 36 Defendants.
Plaintiff Andrew Mattioda, who has been employed as a scientist for Defendant National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) at its Ames Research Center (“ARC”) since 2007, claims that he was subjected to disability-based discrimination during his employment. Dkt. 26 (“Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”). All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt. 9, 12; see also Case No. 20-cv-3745 at Dkt. 14; Dkt. 20-cv-3849 at Dkt. 12; 20-cv-4457 at Dkt. 17. Now before the Court is NASA’s motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, which Mattioda opposes. Dkt. 36 (Motion); 43 (Opp.); 44 (Reply). The Court held a hearing by Zoom on January 25, 2002. After considering the parties’ submissions, arguments at…