GABRov, RoLI.MAN & Bossa, P.C.
2 3507 N. Campbell Avenue, Ste. l 11
Tucson, Arizona 85719
3 520/320-1300
4 Garry B. Bryant, S.B. #004773
LAW OFFICES OF GARRY B. BRYANT
5 3507 N. Campbell Avenue, Ste. 101
Tucson, Arizona 85719
6 520/322-9000
7 Attomeys for Plaintiff ‘
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
O 9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
¤: Z .
- . M 10 KILL GSWORTH d ,
5;; 5 a JOHN IN ’amam° man N0.c1v-02-1950-PHX-Nvw
L g LE, 11 Plaintiff
¤ ¤¤ g 2 g SUPPLEMENTAL CITATION OF
§ ; 2 5 2 12 "S· Aurnomry IN sorronr OF
i ; El E § 13 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
; Z'. Q § INSURANCE COMPANY, etal., SUMMARY JUDGMENT
·¤ .*2
E 2 E § 14 Defendants.
>-7 ¤= 3
E E IJ 15 Plaintiff hereby submit the following supplemental citation of authority in support of
·¤= § 16 .
° his Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment: ‘
17
In Co hlan v. American Seafoods Co. LLC, 413 F.3d 1090 (9m Cir., Jul 7, 2005),
18 Y
19 the Ninth Circuit recently reiterated the analytical framework for determining whether a
20 plaintiff in a discrimination case had satisfied his prima facie burden of demonstrating that
he was ualified for the position he held (or for the position to which he wished to be
21 q
22 promoted), as follows:
23 [ASC, the defendant] argues, however, that [the plaintiff] was not qualified
for those positions because he was not performing at a level consistent with
24 ASC’s expectations. This argument is not convincing. We have
emphasized that "[t]he requisite degree of proof necessary to establish a
25 prima acie case for Title VII and ADEA claims on summary jud ment is
. . . g
26 minimal and does not even need to nse to the level of a preponderance of
the evidence." Wallis v. J .R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994);
C§€'t=5“2€i53·$’&’t/'¥'0“f’§?5’tTPl’Ri’
1 see also Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 659-
60 (9"` Cir. 2002) (emphasizing the low threshold for a prima facie case and ‘
2 holding that even an employee’s self-assessment is relevant evidence).
3 Coghlan has presented enough evidence to meet this minimal burden: most
notably, he had previously served as master of two of ASC’s vessels, the
4 Victoria Ann and the Katie Ann, and was offered the important position of
mate on the Dynasty, suggesting that he was not incompetent to handle
5 major duties on a relatively large ship.
6 Id., 413 F.3d at 1094.
7 RESPECTFULLY submitted this DEU day of August 2005. A
8 GABROY, RoLLMAN & BossE, P.C. A
. 9
{J -
°1 E 10 B ·
Ag E m
U, A ,·; 11 John Gabroy
5 Q 5 § O Richard A. Brown
uu ·< g .
Q 2 E § E 12 LAw Orrrcss or GARRY B. BRYANT
13
E ' g
E § E §·· 14 By:
E; ga 15 Garry B. Bryant
E E Attorneys for Plaintiff .
g it 16 . _
17
COPY o the foregoing m-ai·l·etl S@;f
18 this day of August 2005, to:
19 Charles L. Chester ·
20 Matthew T. Clarke
Mariette S. Spence
21 RYLEY CARLOCK & APPLEWIHTE, P.A.
One North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
gg Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4417
Attorneys for Defendants
23 - .
24 By:
25 y M 1n
26 - U
c§§%L‘2?6’s?€§l%61`"6‘§6€RrvW Document 265 2 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:03-cv-01950-NVW
Document 265
Filed 08/22/2005
Page 1 of 2
Case 2:03-cv-01950-NVW
Document 265
Filed 08/22/2005
Page 2 of 2
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms