Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01219-RPM-MEH

Document 18

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 04-cv-01219-RPM MANDY MULLINS, Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND CITY, INC., Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT S

The plaintiff Mandy Mullins filed this action against her former employer, defendant Diamond City, Inc., alleging pregnancy/gender discrimination in employment and asserting claims for wrongful discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and promissory estoppel under Colorado law. The plaintiff also alleged a a failure to modify her work schedule and a failure to promote as a result of her pregnancy. The defendant moved for summary judgment of dismissal asserting that the plaintiff' Title VII claim fails s because she cannot establish a prima facie case as she was not discharged. Similarly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff' promissory estoppel claim fails because a March 3, 2003 s maternity leave agreement was not breached as she was not discharged and there was no detrimental reliance. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, the evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party and all reasonable inferences drawn in her favor. From the papers

Case 1:04-cv-01219-RPM-MEH

Document 18

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 2 of 2

filed, the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was discharged. The evidence included the plaintiff' receipt of the COBRA s notification stating " Termination of Employment"and, although disputed, her testimony that she contacted Pamela Adams, the defendant' benefits/human resources administrator, and Ed Spears, s a manager, about this " termination"but they were unwilling or unable to respond and directed her to Mike Bonicelli, the president, who failed to respond. It is therefore ORDERED that the defendant' motion for summary judgment is denied. s

Dated: February 8th, 2006.

BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

2