Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peters’ Bakery
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2015 WL 4076496 (2015)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Marcela Ramirez was a longtime employee of Peters’ Bakery (the bakery) (defendant). In 2011, the bakery’s majority owner, Charles Peters, fired Ramirez, resulting in a union arbitration proceeding that ordered Ramirez’s reinstatement. Once Ramirez was reinstated, Charles continued a pattern of harassment and discrimination against Ramirez based on her race and national origin, referring to Mexicans as liars and saying that he never trusted Ramirez’s kind of people. In 2013, Ramirez filed an employment-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff), prompting the EEOC to sue the bakery for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). On June 30, 2015, while the suit remained pending, Charles terminated Ramirez effective July 3, stating that he did not like her. When Ramirez’s union representative spoke to Charles shortly thereafter, Charles said that he fired Ramirez for his own mental health and because she had cost him a lot in lawyers. The EEOC promptly applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prohibit the bakery from terminating, harassing, or disciplining Ramirez pending a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the same conduct for the duration of the suit. In a declaration supporting the TRO request, Ramirez stated that if she lost her job, she and her husband would be unable to pay their mortgage and their children’s education expenses. Also, the family would lose their health insurance. The court considered the TRO application.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freeman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

