Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Curiel v. Henry Schein

January 29, 2009

ROWENA CURIEL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HENRY SCHEIN, INC., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16) Discovery Deadlines: Non-Expert: July 31, 2009 Expert Disclosures Aug. 7, 2009 Suppl. Expert Disclosures Aug. 21, 2009 Expert Discovery Sept. 18, 2009 Motion Deadlines: Non-Dispositive: Sept. 18, 2009 Dispositive: October 16, 2009 Settlement Conference: Nov. 18, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. Courtroom 10 (GSA) Pre-Trial Conference: Jan. 21, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 2 (AWI), 8th Floor Trial: March 23, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 2 (AWI), 8th Floor 10 days Jury Trial

I. Date of Scheduling Conference January 22, 2009

II. Appearances of Counsel

Rayma Church appeared personally on behalf of Plaintiff Rowena Curiel ("Plaintiff").

David J. Cravens appeared personally on behalf of Defendant Henry Schein, Inc. ("Defendant").

III. The Pleadings

A. Summary of the Pleadings

1. Plaintiff's Contentions

Plaintiff is a Hispanic female over the age of 40. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from 2000 through 2005 as a field sales consultant. After she moved from the Bay Area to the San Joaquin Valley to expand Defendant's markets, Plaintiff's manager changed and she began noticing practices of discrimination related to gender. In 2007, Defendant changed Plaintiff's position to that of technology sales specialist but failed to provide her training or support, while training and support was provided to male co-workers. Plaintiff was given a non-exclusive territory and her previous successful field sales territories were reassigned primarily to Caucasians. In February 2008, Defendant terminated Plaintiff.

Plaintiff contends Defendant engaged in unlawful discrimination against women, Hispanics and persons over the age of 40, in that such persons who were male, white and under the age of 40 were given preferential or more advantageous terms and conditions of employment resulting in higher compensation. Plaintiff contends that Defendant's conduct violated California Government Code section 19240a, prohibiting discrimination based upon gender, race and age. By reason of such discrimination, Plaintiff contends she suffered economic and non-economic damages.

Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the form of economic damages (for lost wages) and non-economic damages for emotional distress; punitive damages; and, attorney's fees and costs.

2. Defendant's Contentions

Defendant Henry Schein denies all liability as to each claim alleged in the complaint. Furthermore, Defendant denies that Plaintiff suffered any adverse employment action as a result of gender, age, racial or other discrimination. Defendant has filed an answer in this matter alleging specific affirmative defenses, which it incorporates by reference.

3. Proposed Amendments to the Pleadings

The parties to do not anticipate amending the pleadings at this time.

IV. Factual Summary

A. Uncontested Facts

1. Plaintiff's Uncontested Facts

Plaintiff is a Hispanic female over the age of 40 and a resident of Kings County, California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from March 2000 to March 2005 as a field sales consultant. Subsequently in 2005, Defendant made Plaintiff a technology sales specialist, a new position. Plaintiff's sales territory was located in the San Joaquin Valley. Plaintiff was terminated in February 2008.

2. Defendant's Uncontested Facts

Plaintiff was hired in March 2000 to work as a field consultant in the Bay Area. Plaintiff's employment was terminated in February 2008. Plaintiff's former territory is serviced by a white male.

B. Contested Facts

1. Plaintiff's Contested Facts

a. In March 2005 an agreement was reached whereby Plaintiff moved to the San Joaquin Valley to generate a territory for Defendant;

b. That it was agreed Plaintiff would be given the opportunity to expand her territory to the Central Coast area of California;

c. Plaintiff was successful as a field sales consultant and had no disciplinary or other adverse actions ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.