Brown v. King County

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 4 CLAUDE BROWN, 5 Plaintiff, 6 C16-1340 TSZ v. 7 MINUTE ORDER KING COUNTY, 8 Defendant. 9

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 10 Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 11 (1) The Court has reviewed the Joint Status Report, docket no. 78, and concludes that any renewed motion for summary judgment would be futile. See 12 Reynaga v. Roseburg Forest Prods., 847 F.3d 678, 691 (9th Cir. 2017) (requiring “very little evidence to survive summary judgment in a discrimination case, because the 13 ultimate question is one that can only be resolved through searching inquiry—one that is most appropriately conducted by the factfinder, upon a full record”); Mikkelsen v. Pub. 14 Util. Dist. No. 1, 189 Wn.2d 516, 534, 404 P.3d 464 (2017) (requiring only evidence that “discrimination was a substantial factor in an adverse employment action, not the only 15 motivating factor”). The Court DENIES Defendant’s request to file another motion for summary judgment on the last two steps of the burden-shifting framework articulated in 16 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973), which Defendant addressed in its earlier motion for summary judgment, see 17 docket nos. 32 & 48. 18 (2) The Court will issue a scheduling order setting the case for trial. 19 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 20 Dated this 5th day of October, 2020. 21 William M. McCool Clerk 22