Arakji v. Microchip Technology, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-02936
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Arakji v. Microchip, Judge Freeman denied Arakji’s request to undo the judgment for Microchip in his hiring-discrimination case.
Mazen Arakji’s final judgment in favor of Microchip Technology, Inc. remains in place; the court denied Arakji’s request for relief from that judgment.
What happened
Mazen Arakji sued Microchip Technology, Inc., alleging that it refused to hire him for a Senior Engineer position because of his religion, national origin, race, and disability. The court had previously entered judgment for Microchip after granting its summary-judgment motion.
Arakji asked the court to provide relief from that final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. He argued that his interviewers must have noticed his disability and also submitted unrelated arguments about corruption in government.
The court denied the motion. It explained that Arakji had already made the disability argument and that the argument did not challenge the reasons supporting the earlier judgment. Judge Beth Labson Freeman stated that Microchip had offered legitimate reasons for not hiring Arakji and that he had provided no evidence those reasons were a cover for discrimination.
The detailed version
- Arakji v. Microchip Technology, Inc. · No. 5:19-cv-02936
- Beth Freeman
- May 9, 2022
Background
Mazen Arakji brought a hiring-discrimination case against Microchip Technology, Inc. He alleged that Microchip declined to hire him for a Senior Engineer position because of his religion, national origin, race, and disability, including an issue with his left hand.
The court previously granted Microchip’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in Microchip’s favor. The court found that there were factual disputes about whether Arakji had established an initial case of discrimination. But it also found no factual disputes that Microchip had given legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for rejecting him, including a lack of relevant experience and gaps in his employment history. The court further found that Arakji had offered no evidence that those reasons were a pretext, meaning a cover for discrimination.
Rule 60 motion
Arakji moved for relief from the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule allows a court to set aside a final judgment for specified reasons, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason that justifies relief.
Arakji’s relevant argument was that his interviewers could not have failed to notice his disability. The court rejected the argument for two reasons. First, Arakji had already raised it in opposing summary judgment, and the court explained that a Rule 60 motion cannot simply reargue an earlier position without a qualifying basis for relief. Second, the argument concerned whether Arakji had established an initial case of discrimination, but that issue was not the basis for the earlier summary-judgment ruling. The earlier ruling instead rested on Microchip’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and Arakji’s lack of evidence that those reasons were pretextual.
Disposition
The court DENIED Arakji’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment. It concluded that even accepting Arakji’s argument that the interviewers must have noticed his disability, that point would not change the earlier summary-judgment ruling. Judge Beth Labson Freeman resolved the motion without oral argument.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.