![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
January 16, 2009, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California; September 10, 2009, Filed
[*954] W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Youssef Bouamama was terminated from his job at Go Daddy Software, Inc. ("Go Daddy"). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") brought suit against Go Daddy on Bouamama's behalf in federal district court. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the EEOC on the claim that Bouamama had been unlawfully terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.
Go Daddy moved in the district court for a judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), arguing that there was insufficient evidence that Bouamama engaged in protected activity; or, if he did engage in protected activity, that there was insufficient evidence [**2] that there was a causal connection between that activity and his termination. In the alternative, Go Daddy moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). The district court denied both motions. We affirm.
Go Daddy is a for-profit corporation that assists individuals and companies in registering domain names on the Internet. Go Daddy operates a call center from which employees provide sales and technical support to customers over the telephone. Go Daddy also has a Tech Support/Web Board department that responds to customer requests over email.
In September 2001, Bouamama, a Muslim of Moroccan national origin, interviewed for a job at Go Daddy. Brett Villeneuve, a supervisor in the call center, participated in the interview. Go Daddy hired Bouamama on a temporary basis as a Technical Support Representative in the Tech Support/Web Board department. Bouamama began working on September 20, 2001, for $ 12 per hour.
Shortly after Bouamama was hired, Villeneuve became the operations manager of the call center, which meant that he was in charge of the employees in both the call center and in the Tech Support/Web Board department. Villeneuve testified that although [**3] Bouamama was assigned to the Web Board, he occasionally answered calls for the call center. Some customers complained about Bouamama's manner on the phone. Nevertheless, on December 13, 2001, Villeneuve converted Bouamama to a full-time, regular employee, raising his wage to $ 14 per hour, and providing him [*955] with medical, dental, and disability benefits, and paid vacations and holidays. At trial, Villeneuve described Bouamama as "a good rep . . . . [T]echnically knowledgeable. His typing skills were good. He put out good, solid answers."
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
581 F.3d 951 *; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20159 **; 107 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 242
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GO DADDY SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Subsequent History: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. EEOC, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6497 (U.S., Oct. 4, 2010)
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-04-02062-DGC. David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding.
EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26297 (D. Ariz., Apr. 6, 2007)
protected activity, Sales, terminated, conversation, comments, religion, walk, insufficient evidence, district court, retaliation, positions, phones, candidates, employees, spoke, complain, retaliation claim, national origin, promotion, questions, customer, cubicle, isolated incident, jury's verdict, discriminatory, interviewed, motion for judgment as a matter of law, reasonable person, no evidence, eliminated
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, General Overview, Substantial Evidence, Plain Error, Abuse of Discretion, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Motions for New Trials, Labor & Employment Law, Discrimination, Retaliation, Title VII Discrimination, Disparate Treatment, Evidence