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.

Mojazza v. Farmington City

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

January 9, 2017

SARAH MOJAZZA, Plaintiff,
v.
FARMINGTON CITY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          David Nuffer, District Judge

         Sarah Mojazza (Mojazza) alleges that Farmington City (City) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights act in three ways: First, sexual harassment;[1] second, sex discrimination;[2] and third, retaliation.[3] The City moved for summary judgment on all claims.[4] Mojazza responded in opposition.[5] The City replied.[6]

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”[7] A factual dispute is genuine when “there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.”[8] In determining whether there is a genuine dispute as to material fact, the court should “view the factual record and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom most favorably to the nonmovant.”[9]

         The moving party “bears the initial burden of making a prima facie demonstration of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.”[10]

         DISCUSSION

         There are many disputed material facts in this motion. Principal among them are those relating to Mojazza's interactions with her direct supervisors. For example, Mojazza's supervisor testifies that the alleged harassment was first brought to his attention after December 25, 2012 while Mojazza testifies that the alleged harassment was first brought to her supervisor's attention on November 11, 2012.[11] Indeed, the facts set out in the Motion itself are irreconcilable.[12] There is little to no contemporary documentation to rely on. For instance, the City contends that it terminated Mojazza because she used inappropriate language while on the job in front of Farmington citizens, [13] but there is no supporting documentation. Simply, the City says she did, but she says she did not.[14] These and many others[15] are the classic factual disputes destined for juries, not resolvable by the court on a motion for summary judgment: A rational trier of fact could decide the matter either way.

         The relevant legal tests to which the jury will apply the facts will be decided after pretrial motions and jury instructions are resolved.[16] A trial order will issue.

         ORDER

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion and Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment[17] is DENIED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Complaint at 6, docket no. 2, February 26, ...


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.