Free Description not available - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

,,)r,___ I
. I I
·_ Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 41 Filed 05/14/2004 Page 1 of 4 I I
4 " O O I
I I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
I I
I I
SUSAN B. WOOD, crvu. Acrron N . I I
3:03-CV-986 (J CH I
Plaintiff
` l
v.
HUF: g
SEMPRA ENERGY TRADING $954* ‘““' ·-n I I I
coaroaarron, May 14. 2004 gg § ____ I
23;* ··· E"- I
Defendant. Q; -*7
as » O I
www W I I
ao. I I
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUD MENT WI
ON PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT " I I
I
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and D. Conn. L. R. Civ. P. 56, D fendant, Sempra I I
I I
Energy Trading Corp. ("Sempra") respectfully moves the Court for an Order anting partial I
summary judgment in its favor on all claims in the Complaint, dated May 14, 003 [doc. #1] (the
"Complaint"), with the sole exception of Plaintiff s claim for breach of an im lied contract to
I .
reimburse business expenses (Count Eleven). As set forth fully in the Defend t’s
accompanying brief the thirteen counts of the Complaint on which Sempra n moves fail as a
I I
. I I
matter of law. More particularly:
(l) Plaintiff s claim that she was subjected to a hostile wor environment on
the basis of her gender and sexual orientation (Counts One, Two, Three) fails ecause the alleged
conduct upon which she relies was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and
I
conditions of her employment and because Plaintiff failed to notify Sempra 0 the alleged I
harassment.
I I
I
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED I
TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED I I
E;§.§.;1=s:;:sl;I¤,1-¤I..?s..,.,.%....,: _ _ ‘’·’ - r-I-I . ._,_, _ V _ ’r’r ’r-e rV-r »VIr IV.. .V., rr
,____
I I I I I I I I if IIIII IIII IIII Ii I I;
Pa a
I -_-- -_--i if Ia p-‘I Ii I I- O I- YI I—-- Iaii `.``‘ YO
....

I · _ Case 3:03-cv-OO9®lCH Document 41 Filed 05/1 @004 Page 2 of 4 E {
l T l
(2) The decision to tenninate Plaintiffs employment was tirely unrelated to
her gender or sexual orientation (Counts One, Two, Three) and Plaintiff can a duce no facts i
from which an inference of discrimination can fairly be drawn. (
(3) Plaintiffs retaliatory discharge claims (Counts Four, Fi e) are meritless, ,
as there is no evidence that Plaintiff was discharged in retaliation for complai ing about a T {
business dispute in which she was involved nine months piior to her terminati n (the "Howley
Incident"). I
(4) Plaintiffs claim for breach of an express contract (Cou t Six) cannot l I
stand because Sempra’s Employee Handbook - - and an Employment Applica ion signed by
Plaintiff- - contain clear and effective disclaimers of contract. Moreover, the ndisputed facts l
show that Sempra investigated the Howley Incident in accordance with the te s of the
Employee Handbook.
l
(5) Plaintiffs claims for breach of an implied contract, pro issory estoppel
and unjust enrichment (Counts Seven, Eight, Nine) fail because those claims e based upon
alleged oral statements that are flatly inconsistent with the terms of Plaintiffs ritten
Employment Agreement.
(6) Plaintiffs claim for breach of an implied covenant of g od faith and fair
dealing (Count Ten) is untenable because Plaintiff has adequate statutory rem dies, the conduct
about which she complains did not breach the Employment Agreement, and S mpra did not
violate any public policy.
(7) Plaintiffs claim for unpaid wages (Count Twelve) fails ecause Plaintiff
concedes that the alleged "wage" to which she claims entitlement- — i.e., a bo us payment for the
l
-2-

Mi l
_ t Case 3:03-cv-OO9@JCH Document 41 Filed 05/1 @.5004 Page 3 of 4 \
l 1
l J

year 2002 - — was not tied solely to her job performance. Further, Plaintiff ca ot demonstrate a I
ii
contractual entitlement to any bonus payment. I
(8) Plaintiffs claims for negligent investigation (Counts T irteen, Fourteen) I
ix
are barred under Connecticut law and, in any event, the record evidence demo strates that
lt
Sempra thoroughly investigated Plaintiff s complaint regarding the Howley cident. i
l
WHEREFORE, Sempra respectfully submits that the Court sh uld grant its i
motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety.
lt
l
Dated: Stamford, Cormecticut
May 14, 2004 1
Respectfully Submitted,
i2
l
By; Karoo . at lt
1 Mary C. Dollarhide (ctl225l (
Peter M. Schultz (ct19425) E
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & W lker LLP
1055 Washington Boulevard l
Stamford, CT 06901-2217 1
. Telephone: (203) 961-7400 l
Fax: (203) 359-3031
Counsel for Defendant
l
il
l
`
l

l
l

l

._- n l

` . I - Case 3:03-cv-OO9€j6;\JCH Document 41 Filed 05/WOO4 Page 4 of 4 E
J M/1 li I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing efendant’s Motion I
for Partial Summary Judgment was served on the following counsel of record ia courier on this
l
14th day of May 2004:
Brendan J. O’Rou;rke
_ O’Rourke & Associates, LLC
27 Pine Street
New Canaan, CT 06840
ll
l _
E
l
Peter M. Schultz
l

STMf274l20.2
l

i; I
l *
i2
it
`E
E
l
li
i
l
l
I
{

-4- `
l I E
.- Ll