Houston v. Cintas Corp.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

April 3, 2009, Decided; April 3, 2009, Filed

No. C 05-3145 JSW

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF DISMISSAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT NOTICE, OF PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT RAMIREZ, JOSE SALCEDO, CLIFTON E. COOPER, JAMES MORGAN, AND A. SHAPPELLE THOMPSON

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of an unopposed motion to grant a motion to dismiss the putative class claims of Plaintiffs Robert Ramirez ("Ramirez"), Jose Salcedo ("Salcedo"), Clifton E. Cooper ("Cooper"), James Morgan ("Morgan"), and A. Shappelle Thompson ("Thompson")  [*2] (collectively "Plaintiffs"), and to approve a stipulation of Thompson's Individual claims with Prejudice and his putative class claims without prejudice. Having considered the parties' papers, including supplemental briefing ordered by the Court, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court HEREBY GRANTS the motion and shall enter the stipulation by separate Order, and the hearing date set for April 24, 2009 is VACATED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging employment discrimination against Cintas Corporation ("Cintas") on January 20, 2004. Ramirez and Salcedo allege that Cintas discriminated against Hispanics who have held positions as exempt supervisors or managers at Cintas' Rental Division below the General Manager (or Branch Manager or equivalent) in promotion out of these positions, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981") and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et. seq. ("Title VII"). Houston alleges that Cintas discriminated against African Americans in promotion to Service Manager positions in Cintas' Rental Division, in violation of Section 1981  [*3] and California Business and Professions Code § 17200 ("Section 17200"). Cooper, alleges that Cintas discriminated against African American managers in compensation in Cintas' Rental Division, in violation of Section 1981, Title VII, and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Govt. Code §§ 12940 et seq. ("FEHA"), and Section 17200. Morgan alleges that Cintas discriminated against African American Service Sales Representatives ("SSR") through a compensation and assignment scheme that placed them in lower paying SSR jobs than their white counterparts, in violation of Section 1981, Title VII, FEHA and Section 17200. Thompson raises the same claim under Section 1981.

Pursuant to Court Order or stipulation, the Plaintiffs instituted an arbitration, on behalf of themselves and the classes they seek to represent, which currently is pending. Neither this Court nor the Arbitrator have certified a class, although the Arbitrator has ruled that the Plaintiffs may seek class certification. The Plaintiffs now seek to dismiss the putative class claims and proceed with their individual claims in the arbitration proceedings. 1 Cintas does not oppose the motion.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33704 *; 2009 WL 921627

LARRY HOUSTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CINTAS CORPORATION, Defendant.

Notice: NOT FOR CITATION

Prior History: Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86303 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2006)

CORE TERMS

putative class, arbitration, individual claim, discriminated, grant a motion, pre-certification, settlement, positions, alleges, factors, notice, potential class member, statute of limitations, supplemental briefing, violation of section, plaintiff's claim, class member, class claim, compromised, UNOPPOSED, promotion, approve