Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.
Conference Materials
If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please
complete the following steps:
• Click on the + sign next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-
hand column on your screen.
• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a
PDF of the slides for today's program.
• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your
location by completing each of the following steps:
• Close the notification box
• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of
attendees at your location
• Click the SEND button beside the box
Tips for Optimal Quality
Sound Quality
If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of
your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet
connection.
If the sound quality is not satisfactory and you are listening via your computer
speakers, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-258-2056 and enter your
PIN -when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail
sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem.
If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.
Viewing Quality
To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,
press the F11 key again.
Crafting Summary Judgment
Motions in Employment Litigation:
The Fundamentals
Part I
Presented by:
Veenita D. Raj
Senior Associate, Labor & Employment
Michelman & Robinson, LLP
818.783.5530
vraj@mrllp.com
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Summary Judgment Standard
Rule 56 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides for the
filing of a motion for summary judgment in advance of trial:
o Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment.
A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense (or the
part of each claim or defense) on which summary judgment is sought.
The court shall grant summary judgment if:
No genuine dispute as to any material fact, and
For a dispute to be “genuine,” the evidence must be such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the
non-moving party.
Page 2
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Summary Judgment Standard
o Procedures
Supporting factual positions.
Citing to particular parts of the material in the record.
Showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine
dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Page 3
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Summary Judgment Standard
When facts are unavailable to the nonmovant.
Failing to properly support or address a fact.
Judgment independent of the motion.
Failing to grant all the requested relief.
Affidavit or declarations submitted in bad faith.
Page 4
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Summary Judgment Standard
U.S. Supreme Court on what should not be considered by the court in
granting or denying a rule 56 motion:
o Credibility determinations and the drawing of inferences from the facts are
jury functions, not those for a judge.
o The evidence on the nonmovant is to be believed and all justifiable
inferences to be drawn in his favor.
Although courts have emphasized that credibility determinations are to
be made by a trier of facts, courts continue to examine affidavits -
pursuant to Rule 56(e) mandates, in reviewing the record as a whole -
[Matsushita Electric Indust. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
574, 587 (1985)].
o Rule 56(e) affidavits must not be conclusory or based upon hearsay.
Page 5
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Page 6
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
1986 trilogy of cases by the Supreme Court [Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 1986); Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317 (1986)].
o Completely changed the landscape.
o Made it easier for defendants to obtain summary judgment in cases of at
least arguable discrimination.
o Courts are no longer reluctant to grant summary judgment in cases where
there exists questions of fact concerning the employer’s motive.
o Have made obtaining summary judgment much easier.
o Courts have applied these decisions in employment discrimination cases
with greater frequency.
Page 7
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
o Courts must now evaluate a party’s evidence and determine its probative
value at summary judgment.
o A non-moving party cannot point to some supporting evidence to satisfy his
burden of production if it will not sustain the burden of proof on the merits.
Page 8
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Celotex v. Catrett
o A defendant may successfully move for summary judgment merely by
pointing out that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving
party’s case.
o Essentially, defendant only has to point out that the plaintiff has insufficient
evidence to raise a “genuine issue” as to any material fact.
o Loosened the burden of the defendant to prove an absence of any genuine
issue of material fact and requires the plaintiff to affirmatively show that such
an issue exists.
o Result
Plaintiff is required to meet the ultimate burden of proof at summary judgment
stage instead of trial.
Page 9
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Page 10
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Despite this, courts were still reluctant to use summary judgment in
employment cases.
Recent change in the historic view
o Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Ct. App., 2011)
The 8th Circuit revisited summary judgment standard in employment discrimination
context and discounted earlier opinions that found that summary judgment should
“seldom” or “sparingly” be granted in discrimination cases.
Held that the U.S. Supreme Court has unequivocally found that district courts should not
“treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact.”
Designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination in every action.
Page 11
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
NO UNIFORM STANDARD
o Courts of Appeals disagree of the proper standard for summary judgment in
employment discrimination cases.
Use both the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting test and the motivating factor test
of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), in making determinations of
summary judgment mixed-motive employment discrimination cases.
Page 12
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Page 13
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
o Cases
Griffith v. City of Des Moines 387 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2004). If no direct evidence,
use McDonnell Douglass. If direct evidence is present, then Plaintiff may be able
to prove his prima facie case. No need to proceed to 3 prong McDonnell Douglass
analysis.
Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2004) [(overruled on other grounds, see
Ash V. Tyson Foods, Inc. 546 U.S. 454, 457 (2006).]
Page 14
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (Birth of Mixed-
Motive case)
o Legitimate and illegitimate considerations were actual basis for the adverse
action.
o Plaintiff must show by “direct evidence” that an illegitimate criterion was a
substantial factor in the decision.
o Shifts the burden of persuasion to defendant once plaintiff shows that an
impermissible factor was a motivating factor in the adverse decision.
Plaintiff would prefer this because only required to show impermissible factor
motivated instead of proving that all legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons proffered
by a defendant are pretextual.
On the other hand, employers were able to avoid liability in mixed-motive cases by
showing that they would have taken the same action despite being motivated by an
impermissible reason.
Page 15
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
1991 Title VII Amendment – Response to Price Waterhouse
o An unlawful employment act is established when the complaining party
demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a
motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also
motivated the practice.
o Under Price Waterhouse employers were able to completely avoid liability.
Now the employer can only reduce the scope of remedies available to a successful
plaintiff and not avoid liability.
o This amendment was silent on what type of evidence is required for plaintiff
to successfully demonstrate the illegal motivation.
Page 16
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Page 17
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa 539 U.S. 90 (2003)
o Eliminated “direct evidence” standard from mixed-motive cases.
o Circumstantial evidence is all that is needed.
o Desert Palace does not provide any guidance as to what constitutes
sufficient evidence to demonstrate discrimination and merit the mixed-motive
instruction.
o Title VII requires plaintiff to demonstrate not merely infer the employer’s use
of an illegitimate criterion.
o This is different quality of evidence than the inferential McDonnell Douglas
framework.
o Consistent with the amendment.
Not all courts follows this, i.e. 8th circuit.
Page 18
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Modified McDonnell Douglas Standard (Fifth Circuit) merging of
McDonnell Douglas and Price Waterhouse approach.
o Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination and create an
inference of illegal discrimination.
o Burden shifts to defendant to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason
for making an adverse employment decisions.
o Burden shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence either
Defendant’s reason is not true but is instead pretext for discrimination (the pretext
alternative) OR;
That the Defendant’s reason while true is only one of the reasons for its conduct
and another motivating factor is the plaintiff’s protected characteristics (mixed-
motive alternative).
Page 19
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
o If a plaintiff is able to show that his protected characteristic was a motivating factor in the
employer’s adverse employment decision, the employer must prove that it would have made
the same decision regardless of the discriminatory factor.
o Cases
Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2004); same standard for
ADEA cases.
Page 20
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
McDonnell Douglass or Motivating Factor (4th, 9th and D.C. Circuit)
o Middle of the road approach
Plaintiff may survive summary judgment by using the traditional McDonnell
Douglas burden shifting analysis.
ALTERNATIVELY, the plaintiff can present direct or circumstantial evidence that
raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an impermissible factor such as
race motivated the employer’s adverse employment decision.
The impermissible factor does not have to be the sole factor, but it must have been a
motivating factor.
If so, plaintiff has a claim for unlawful employment practice.
o Cases
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co., 416 F.3d 310, 318 (4th Cir.
2005).
Fogg v. Gonzalez 492 F.3d 451 & n* (D.C. Cir. 2007).
McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1122 (9th Cir. 2004).
Page 21
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Baxter Framework (Sixth Circuit)
o Effectively removes summary judgment from the equation of mixed-motive
disparate treatment cases [White v. Baxter Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir.
2008)].
Sixth Circuit declined to extend the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework
to summary judgment in mixed-motive cases.
Is the minority view and has not gained much traction.
Page 22
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
o Precludes sending the case to the jury only:
Where the record is devoid of evidence that could reasonably be construed to
support the plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff in mixed motive case need only show:
that defendant impermissibly relied on a protected characteristic and
that the protected characteristic was a motivating factor for any employment practice even
though other factors also motivated the practice.
Page 23
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
o The question for the court is whether the plaintiff is able to provide sufficient
evidence that his protected status played a motivating role in a defendant’s
employment decision.
A court making summary judgment decision must not ask whether the plaintiff has
produced sufficient evidence to survive the McDonnell Douglas shifting burdens,
but rather whether there are any genuine issues of material fact concerning the
defendant’s motivation for its adverse employment decision, and, if none are
present, whether the law supports a judgment in favor of the moving party on the
basis of undisputed facts.
Thus under Baxter, if a plaintiff can put forth any evidence that could
reasonably be construed to support his claim, he has created a genuine
issue of material fact.
7th Circuit appears to have not considered the issue, but earlier this year,
(albeit in a concurring opinion), asked whether the McDonnell Douglas
test still has any utility. See Coleman v. Donahoe 677 F.3d 835 (7th Cir.
2012)
Page 24
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Page 25
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
o Pretext may be proven by direct or indirect (unbelievable or unworthy
credence) evidence,. i.e. in Shelley – inquiry regarding plaintiff’s retirement
date; plaintiff’s superior qualifications.
o Modified McDonnell Douglass Approach – 5th Circuit. (Use of “motivating
factor” altough inconsistent with ADEA’s text.)
Americans With Disability Act (ADA)
o Retaliation claims McDonnell Douglass burden shifting (see Brown v. City
of Tucson 336 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2003).
Page 26
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Summary Judgment in Employment
Discrimination Cases
Equal Pay Act
o King v. Acosta Sale and Marketing, Inc., No. 11-3617 (7th Cir. March 15,
2012)
McDonnell Douglass was inapposite to the facts.
An employee’s only burden under the Equal Pay Act is to show a difference in pay
for “equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and
responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions”
(§206(d)(1)).
An employer asserting that the difference is the result of a “factor other than sex”
must present this contention as an affirmative defense – and the proponent of an
affirmative defense has the burdens of both production and persuasion.
Page 27
Summary Judgment Motions in Employment Law
March 28, 2012
Thank You for Attending
Veenita D. Raj
Senior Associate, Labor & Employment
Michelman & Robinson, LLP
818.783.5530
vraj@mrllp.com
Legal Developments Affecting Motions to
Dismiss/Summary Judgment and
Strategies for Employers*
GENEVA | HOUSTON | KANSAS CITY | LONDON | MIAMI | ORANGE COUNTY | SAN FRANCISCO | TAMPA | WASHINGTON, D.C.
William C. Martucci
National Employment Litigator &
Policy Strategist
202-783-8400
wmartucci@shb.com
Special thanks to Michele L. Maryott of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for much of the materials
pertinent to the following slides concerning motions to dismiss.
The Dynamic Duo: Twombly and Iqbal
34
The Dynamic Duo: Twombly and Iqbal
36
What About Swierkiewicz?
Is Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), Still
Good Law?
37
Twombly/Iqbal in Action: Retaliation
Pre-Twombly/Iqbal Complaint: Post-Twombly/Iqbal Complaint:
McMahom v. New York City Board of Ed. Coleman v. Tulsa City Bd. Of City
(E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2006) Commissioners (N.D. Okla. Aug. 11, 2009)
38
Twombly/Iqbal in Action:
Retaliation
Motion denied:
39
Twombly/Iqbal in Action:
Hostile Work Environment
Motion granted:
40
Twombly/Iqbal in Action:
Hostile Work Environment
Motion denied:
41
Twombly/Iqbal in Action:
Disability Discrimination
Motion denied:
• Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d. Cir. 2009):
plaintiff’s allegations that she “believed” she was terminated
because of her disability deemed sufficient to avoid motion to
dismiss; court found that identification of impairment and
alleged limitation to sedentary work plausibly suggested she
might be substantially limited in major life activity; plaintiff
had not pleaded elements of prima facie case
Motion granted:
• Williams v. Temple Univ. Hosp., 2010 WL 4540328 (3d Cir.
2010): plaintiff’s allegation that she was injured at work but
later sent back to work on full duty status held not sufficient
to give rise to plausible claim for relief under ADA; court
noted that the Iqbal “standard is not an extraordinarily high
one”
42
Twombly/Iqbal in Action:
Age Discrimination
Motion granted:
• Adams v. Lafayette College, 2009 WL 2777312 (E.D.
Penn. Aug. 31, 2009): allegations that younger
employees were treated differently on several occasions
and that plaintiff received harsher treatment because of
his age were insufficient legal conclusions
Motion denied:
• Martinez v. RZB Finance LLC, 2010 WL 4449031
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2010): allegation that younger, higher-
paid white male replaced her as Chief Accountant after
her unexplained demotion sufficient to survive motion to
dismiss attacking ADEA and Title VII discrimination
claims
43
Effective Use of the Twombly/Iqbal
Standard
Key Considerations:
• Removal
*Special thanks to Teresa Rider Bult of Constangy Brooks & Smith for much of the materials pertinent
to the following slides concerning defense strategies.
46
State and Federal Court
•Federal courts may be inclined to reading the standard
as favoring disposition of cases on summary judgment.
•Judicial approach to SJ changed meaningfully in 1980s
with Supreme Court’s decision in 3 key cases, so-called
“summary judgment trilogy”:
−Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)
−Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986),
&
−Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio
Crop., 475 U.S. 574 (1986).
•Decisions made it much easier for defendants in federal
cases to win on summary judgment and placed more
significant burdens on plaintiffs who opposed summary
judgment.
47
State and Federal Court
•State courts can and have established their own
benchmarks describing when a moving party is entitled
to summary judgment.
−some states follow the federal standard,
−other states have specifically declined to follow the
federal model and have adopted a different, and
usually more rigorous, standard.
48
Summary Judgment – Often “the Trial”
in Employment Cases
• In the employment context, summary judgment is
particularly important, as most employers rely on this
procedure to quickly dispense of their cases.
• Juries are unpredictable in the best of circumstances,
but in employment cases, where every juror has been
an employee at some point in their lives and therefore
believes they have an industrial expertise, juries can be
more problematic.
• Combined with the problem that every employee has
likely had or knows of someone who has had a bad boss
or bad employment experience, the prospect of bringing
an employment case to a jury can be daunting.
49
So How do Defendants Win in the Summary
Judgment Context?
50
Key Documents to Obtain
Summary Judgment
51
Depositions and Written Discovery
•Have summary judgment motion outlined & research done
before deposition – know what admissions you need.
•Tie witness down on allegation – recap, “So these are the 5
things you are saying XYZ company did to discriminate
against you?”
•Touch every document in the case before the deposition – do
not be surprised.
•Credibility issues arising at depositions don’t help as much
with summary judgment (but have to prepare for trial)
•Written discovery – helps plaintiff more than defendant, BUT
before deposition, try to get:
−Medical Records
−Past Employment Records
−Email addresses
−Do a Background Check
52
Drafting the Brief and Statement of
Undisputed Facts
•Focus on the law
•Sure way to lose: disputed facts
− Don’t dispute facts that the other side has
contradicted in depositions (even if minor)
− Minimize those facts that the other side says are
disputed
− Keep your own facts to a minimum – most
important
− Statement of Undisputed Facts should be like
Requests for Admission
•Write, rewrite, and rewrite again – clarity and easily
readable
•Analyze venue re: whether will have hearing
53
Strategic Considerations
54
Recent Caselaw as Illustrations
• Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008)
• Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn.
September 20, 2010)
‒ Defendant must produce evidence that (1) affirmatively negates
an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim; or (2) shows
that the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential element of
the claim at trial.
• “Evidence satisfying an employer’s burden of production pursuant to
the McDonnell Douglas framework does not necessarily demonstrate
that there is no genuine issue of material fact.”
‒ Then plaintiff’s burden to show genuine issues of materials fact as
to that element.
• ”Our holding does not exclude the possibility of summary
judgment when an employer presents undisputed evidence
that a legitimate reason was the exclusive motivation for
discharging the employee.”
55
Effective Summary Judgment Practice
56
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Applicable
State SJM Rules
57
Local District Court Rules
(Examples)
•Northern District of California
•District of Columbia
•Middle District of Florida
•Southern District of Florida
•District of Kansas
•Eastern District of Louisiana
•Western District of Missouri
•Southern District of Texas
58
Evidentiary Considerations:
The Role of Discovery
59
Effective Briefing Skills –
The Joy of the Focus
60
1. Persuade the Court with the Facts in the
Opening of Your Brief
61
2. Present the Undisputed Facts in
Crisp, Clear, Simple Language
62
3. Make Certain the Record Clearly Supports
Your Statement of the Facts
63
4. Keep Your Organization
Clear, Simple, and Comprehensive
64
5. Simplify the Legal Analysis – Set Forth the
Legal Framework & Relevant Cases
65
6. Maintain Your Credibility Throughout
the Brief – Do Not Overreach in
Your Position, in Case Holdings or
in Other Areas
(Avoid Personal Attacks – Strive for
Professionalism and the High-Ground)
66
7. Proof Carefully – Avoid Basic Mistakes
in Grammar and Case Citations
67
8. Double Check All Exhibits and Attachments to
Ensure That Documents are Complete, There are
No Privilege/Confidentiality Issues and All
Citations to the Record are Accurate
68
9. Understand the Role of the Summary
Judgment Brief in Your Relationship
with the Client
69
10. Consider the Briefing Process
As One Component of Your
Overall Trial Development Strategy
70
The Briefing Process
71
About William C. Martucci
National Employment Litigator &
Policy Strategist
Shook, Hardy & Bacon
Washington, DC
72