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.

Nguyen v. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

November 26, 2014

NGA TUYET NGUYEN, Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, sued herein as THE MANAGEMENT OF SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [Re: Docket No. 31]

HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.

Nga Tuyet Nguyen sues the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (sued as "The Management of Santa Clara Superior Court") for employment discrimination. Defendant moves to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 31. Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition and Defendant filed a reply. Dkt. Nos. 34, 35. All parties have expressly consented to having all matters proceed before a magistrate judge. Based on the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments presented at the hearing on November 25, 2014, the Court grants the motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is employed by the Superior Court Hall of Justice, Public Services Division as a Legal Process Clerk III.[1] The first amended complaint alleges a series of incidents that occurred during her employment with the court.

In 2010, Plaintiff applied to be a Court Room Clerk. FAC [Dkt. No. 30], at 4. In July 2011, Plaintiff applied to be a Court Specialist. Id. Although Plaintiff was qualified for both positions, she was not allowed to test or interview for them. Id. Plaintiff is "aware that individuals outside [her] protected class were selected." Id. at 5.

In 2010, Plaintiff was required to file stamp thirty-six exhibits in the Clerk's Office, in violation of court procedures. Id.

Plaintiff's supervisor issued Plaintiff a written warning for failing to open emails in a timely fashion. Id. at 4. It was later withdrawn, and Plaintiff was issued a verbal warning instead. Id. Plaintiff received a second verbal warning for failing to timely open emails in 2014. Id. At that time, Plaintiff discovered that her computer's default settings caused her emails to be delayed. Id.

In January 2014, Plaintiff's supervisor directed her to process an invalid transaction and attempted to "blame [her] for processing document [sic] untimely." Id. at 5.

In February 2014, Plaintiff's supervisor "notified a complaint statement" about an erroneous transaction in the Superior Court's accounting system that was "illegally filed in an attempt to frame [her] for an error [she] did not commit." Id.

In June 2014, Plaintiff's supervisor required Plaintiff to process an "unauthorized" transaction. Id. at 5-6.

In July 2014, Plaintiff was investigated by human resources and sued for using the "wrong word" in a conversation with a coworker. Id. at 6. The case was "dismissed because it was a misunderstanding and false representation of the situation." Id. Since then, Plaintiff has been harassed. Specifically, when coworkers observed Plaintiff in a car with a boy, one of them stated, "You like younger man, they should have more fun." Id. Plaintiff later overheard a coworker "announce[] out loud that she has just helped the most good looking man she has ever seen." Id. These incidents "create[d] very uncomfortable situations." Id.

In September 2014, Plaintiff was wrongly blamed for improperly calendaring a defendant's appearance. Id.

Plaintiff was not allowed to participate in group training that younger coworkers were allowed to participate in. Id. at 4. Moreover, Plaintiff's vacation preferences were disregarded despite her seniority. Id. at 5.

In addition, "[f]rom time to time, until 2014, [she] ha[s] been described as the person with the Federal law suit that is a pain in the ass', and a wrong ...


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.