Free Supplement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 40 North Center Street, Suite 200 4 Mesa, Arizona 85201 Telephone No.: (480) 464-1111 (480) 464-5692 5 Facsimile No.: Email: [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff By: Michael R. Pruitt, State Bar No. 011792 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10 Connie Alms, a single woman, 11 12 vs. 13 AdvancePCS, a Delaware corporation, n/k/a CaremarkRx, Inc., a Delaware 14 corporation, 15 16 17 Plaintiff, Connie Alms, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Case No. CIV 04-0332 PHX JWS

18 submits this supplemental authority to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff would like to bring to the Court's attention a recent 20 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling dealing with the quality of circumstantial evidence that 21 must be presented to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in the context of 22 a motion for summary judgment. The case in question is Cornwell v. Electra Central Credit 23 Union, No. 04-35408 (9th Cir. March 2006). 24 25 26 In Cornwell the court stated that: "In view of the Supreme Court's recognition in Costa [Desert Palace, Inc. V. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003)] that circumstantial evidence may be `more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence,'and McGinest's [McGinest v.
Document 59 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00332-JWS

1 2 3 4

GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, (9th Cir. 2004)] holding that a disparate treatment plaintiff can defeat a motion for summary judgment relying on circumstantial evidence, we conclude that in the context of summary judgment, Title VII does not require a disparate treatment plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence to produce more, or better, evidence than a plaintiff who relies on direct evidence." [Citations omitted] Cornwell at 2073.

5 Previously the court had held that: 6 7 8 9 Cornwell at 2070. 10 11 JACKSON WHITE 12 13 14 15 I hereby certify that I electronically transmitted the 16 attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 17 Notice of Electronic Filing to the following if CM/ECF registrants, and mailed a copy of same 18 to any non-registrants this 22nd day of March, 2006: 19 Steve G. Biddle, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON 20 2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 21 Attorneys for Defendant 22 COPY of the foregoing mailed this same day to: 23 The Honorable John W. Sedwick United States District Court 24 222 West 7th Avenue, #4 Anchorage, AK 99513 25 /s/ Michael R. Pruitt 26 F:\ABC\Alms\Defendants.MSJ\Supp.Auth.Resp.MSJ.Alms.wpd
Case 2:04-cv-00332-JWS Document 59 2 Filed 03/22/2006 Page 2 of 2

"To establish that a defendant's nondiscriminatory explanation is a pretext for discrimination, plaintiff's may rely on circumstantial evidence, which we previously have said must be `specific' and `substantial' to create a genuine issue of material fact. Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc, 150 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 1998)."

DATED this 22nd day of March , 2006.

/s/ Michael R. Pruitt By: Michael R. Pruitt, No. 011792 40 North Center Street, Suite 200 Mesa, Arizona 85201 Attorneys for Plaintiff