Free Reply - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-CV-1135-REB-PAC ADRIAN OSORNIO, BETSY MARTINEZ, JESSICA WILLIAMS, ISTQUIA REYNA, MIGUEL FONTANET, and MAYRA CARMONA, Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant. T-MOBILE USA, INC.'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY BRIEF I. T-MOBILE IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OSORNIO'S RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION CLAIM. In its opening brief, T-Mobile met its McDonnell Douglas burden by producing evidence that it terminated plaintiff Adrian Osornio's employment because he failed to create a positive work environment for his team and, instead, he implicitly threatened their continued employment.1 See Def. Br. 1-5.2 None of Osornio's efforts to show that T-Mobile's reason was a pretext for discrimination are meritorious.

Plaintiffs contend that T-Mobile failed to comply with the Court's rules because it did not demonstrate, in its opening brief, that Osornio lacks evidence to prove pretext. See Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl. Br.") at 3-4. However, it is far from clear that either McDonnell Douglas or the Court's rules required T-Mobile to address pretext in its opening brief. Moreover, T-Mobile anticipated--correctly, as it turned out--that Osornio would advance pretext arguments different from those he testified to in his deposition and, therefore, T-Mobile avoided several pages of unnecessary briefing by allowing plaintiffs to make their pretext arguments first. Plaintiffs do not claim, let alone show, any prejudice. In the event that plaintiffs are seeking some sort of advantage by arguing that T-Mobile has not complied with the Court's rules, T-Mobile points out that the plaintiffs' brief is non-complying in several regards and that, according to the Court's file, plaintiffs filed their response brief on June 3, 2005 instead of on May 31, 2005 as required. 2 "Def. Br." refers to Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.

1

646963

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 2 of 15

First, Osornio cannot prove pretext by arguing that T-Mobile did not follow its allegedly mandatory progressive discipline process. According to Osornio, T-Mobile should have given him a verbal warning before his written warning, and it should not have given him a written warning because he supposedly successfully concluded a performance plan. Pl. Br. 4-7. However, even if T-Mobile somehow failed to follow its procedures, the alleged irregularity does not show pretext. See Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 454 (10th Cir. 1995) ("The mere fact that an employer failed to follow its own internal procedures does not necessarily suggest that the employer was motivated by illegal discriminatory intent or that the substantive reasons given by the employer for its employment decision were pretextual.") (italics in original); Ingels v. Thiokol Corp., 42 F.3d 616, 623 (10th Cir. 1994) ("To the extent that there is any inconsistency at all [in following the employer's internal procedures], it only goes to process and not to purpose or motivation . . ") (italics in original), abrogated on other grounds, Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002)). Moreover, the belief of both Erika Amezquita, Osornio's supervisor at the time of his termination, and of Cassandra Shepard, the Human Resources Manager for the Colorado Springs call center, that T-Mobile did not have a mandatory progressive discipline policy and that they were not required to follow the process described by Barbara Berry, Osornio's former manager, further undermines Osornio's pretext contention. Ex. A-34, 18:10-19:23; Ex. A-35, at ¶¶ 5-6; See Randle, 69 F.3d at 455 (employer's belief that it was following proper procedures shows that any failure to do

-2-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 3 of 15

so was a mistake rather than pretext). Similarly, Osornio cannot show pretext by complaining that his written warning required him to improve his performance by March 31, 2003, but that his employment was terminated on March 12, 2003. Pl. Br. 6. Although T-Mobile clearly warned Osornio that his employment might be terminated if he did not improve by March 31, 2003, it certainly did not exclude the possibility that his employment could be terminated earlier. Ex. A-6. Indeed, the warning itself advised Osornio that it did not change his atwill status: "Nothing herein alters your at-will employment status or supports a progressive discipline process." Id. Thus, at most, Osornio has established procedural irregularities and mistakes, but he has not proven pretext. Second, Osornio offers no evidence that similarly situated non-Hispanic employees consistently received the full benefit of the alleged progressive discipline process before termination. Pl. Br. 4-7. Indeed, the evidence is that T-Mobile also terminated non-Hispanic team coaches without going through all steps of the progressive discipline process. Ex. A-35 at ¶ 10. See Kendrick v. Penske Trans. Services, Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1230, n.9 (10th Cir. 2000) (When procedural irregularity affects persons outside plaintiff's protected class, pretext is not shown); Randle, 69 F.3d at 454, n.20. Third, Osornio cannot show pretext by contending, or even demonstrating, that he did not threaten his team, but, instead, he must show that T-Mobile did not honestly believe its reason and that it did not act upon that reason in good faith. See Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc., 186 F.3d 1301, 1318 (10th Cir. 1999) ("The relevant

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 4 of 15

inquiry is not whether [the employer's] proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether [the employer] honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs."), overruled on other grounds, National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). The question is not whether a factfinder could believe Osornio's version of the events but, instead, whether the evidence presented to T-Mobile's decisionmaker was "so weak that a rational factfinder could infer that [the decisionmaker's] expressed reasons for terminating Plaintiff must have been pretextual." Rivera, 365 F.3d at 925 (emphasis added). Osornio's own denials of the allegations do not prove pretext because the focus is upon T-Mobile's perception of the facts. See Kendrick, 220 F.3d at 1231 (employee's denial of allegation immaterial because "a challenge of pretext requires us to look at the facts as they appear to the person making the decision to terminate plaintiff."); Adkins v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1189, 1196 (D. Colo. 2001) (employee's denial "not sufficient to prove pretext"). The fact that some team members signed letters denying the allegations also does not show that T-Mobile lacked a good faith belief that the alleged events occurred.3 See Rivera, 365 F.3d at 917, 925 (statements by other employees supporting plaintiff did not show pretext); McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 149 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (10th Cir. 1998) (alibi statement by co-worker and former police chief's
3

Amezquita could justifiably look skeptically upon the letters Osornio drafted and persuaded some of his co-workers to sign. Osornio's co-plaintiff Mayra Carmona, who had earlier told Amezquita of Osornio's threats, later signed both letters. Ex. A-4, 41:25-43:23; A-9; A-14. However, Carmona has admitted that Osornio told the team that he was on a written warning and that the issue at the team meeting was "our performance." Ex. A-8, 184:23-185:9, 189:7-20, 190:21-191:14, 192:14-25. She also now admits that Osornio's letters are not truthful. Id., 205:3-206:5.

-4-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 5 of 15

affidavit stating that accusing witness was not honest did not prove pretext); Kariotis v. Navistar Int'l Trans. Corp., 131 F.3d 672, 675-78 (7th Cir. 1997) (employer's failure to confer with plaintiff's doctor concerning accuracy of disability claim and doctor's letter during post-termination review labeling disability fraud charge "preposterous" did not prove pretext). Fourth, Osornio cannot show pretext by contending that T-Mobile should have conducted a better investigation as part of its Alternate Resolution Process ("ARP") because the courts avoid second-guessing how an employer conducts its business. See Kariotis, 131 F.3d at 678 (arguing that "company's investigation was so impulsive and shoddy that it reeks of discriminatory intent" cannot show pretext). Here again, Osornio fails to show that he was treated differently from similarly situated nonHispanics. The ARP does not contemplate an investigation. Ex. A-36. Indeed, the testimony cited by Osornio for the proposition that an investigation was to be conducted as part of the ARP does not, in fact, support that contention. Pl. Br. 6-7, at ¶ 22; Ex. B, 148:6-149:8. Therefore, Osornio cannot establish that T-Mobile's reason for terminating his employment was a pretext for discrimination. II. T-MOBILE IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL RETALIATION CLAIMS. A. No Protected Activity.

T-Mobile is entitled to summary judgment on all retaliation claims because plaintiffs have not come forward with any evidence indicating that they protested the allegedly discriminatory treatment of Osornio--as opposed to merely disagreeing with

-5-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 6 of 15

management's decision. See Def. Br. 6-7, 11-12; Pl. Br. 7-9; Petersen v. Utah Dept. of Corrections, 301 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (10th Cir. 2002) (employer cannot illegally retaliate if it does not know that employee is protesting illegal discrimination). This failure, by itself, justifies summary judgment on all retaliation claims. B. No Adverse Employment Action. 1. T-Mobile previously established that the allegedly adverse actions

taken against Miguel Fontanet did not meet the legal standard. Def. Br. 8, 12-13. Because Fontanet does not dispute the facts cited by T-Mobile, his retaliation claim should be dismissed. See Pl. Br. 8-9. 2. Although Jessica Williams cites to her deposition for allegedly

adverse actions, T-Mobile established in its opening brief that the very same testimony did not meet the legal standard and, therefore, her retaliation claim should be dismissed. See Def. Br. 8-9, 12-13; Pl. Br. 9. 3. Carmona, who like Williams and Fontanet voluntarily resigned,

cannot meet her summary judgment burden by claiming that she was disciplined more harshly for attendance problems after she signed letters supporting Osornio because warnings, even if unwarranted, do not constitute adverse employment actions or constructive discharge, especially when, as here, the disciplinary actions are a continuation of the process which began when Osornio was still her team coach. See Pl. Br. 9; Def. Br. 9, 12-13; Sanchez v. Denver Public Schools, 164 F.3d 527, 533 (10th Cir. 1998); Morgan v. Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997).

-6-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 7 of 15

C.

Plaintiffs Istquia Reyna and Betsy Martinez Have not Shown that the Reasons for their Terminations were Pretextual. 1. Reyna's belief that her team manager, Erika Amezquita, became

"an enemy" after she signed Osornio's letters does not constitute an adverse employment action and it does not show that T-Mobile's stated reasons for terminating her employment--her improper entry into a family friend's account to give him bonus minutes--was pretextual.4 Reyna produced no evidence that she was treated differently from other employees who improperly entered and altered accounts. Pl. Br. 9; Def. Br. 9-10, 14. Stover v. Martinez, 382 F.3d 1064, 1070-71 (10th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must show that employer's stated reason was pretext). 2. Nor has Martinez shown that T-Mobile's decision to terminate her

employment because she did not return from medical leave as scheduled was pretextual. Martinez asserts that T-Mobile pressed her to attend work when she had pregnancy-related health problems; but, it is undisputed that T-Mobile did not terminate her employment in the spring of 2003 and, instead, it allowed her to take a medical leave even though she was not eligible for FMLA. See A-21; Pl. Br. 8-9. Although Martinez now contends that she thought that she was entitled to 12 weeks' leave, T-Mobile clearly informed her at the outset of her leave that she was not eligible for 12 weeks' leave and that, instead, her leave would conclude on July 15, 2003. See Ex. A-21; Pl. Br. 9. Martinez produced no evidence that she was treated differently from other employees who do not return from scheduled leave on time. See Pl. Br. 9.

Although point "9" on page 9 of plaintiffs' brief refers to Carmona, the cited transcript is Reyna's and, therefore, T-Mobile assumes that paragraph actually pertains to Reyna.

4

-7-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 8 of 15

Indeed, the letter she received, informing her of her return date and of the consequences of failing to return on time is a standard T-Mobile form letter, and T-Mobile consistently terminates the employment of those who fail to return as scheduled. Ex. A-35, at ¶¶ 11-12. Thus, her testimony establishes at worst a misunderstanding by Martinez, but not pretext. III. T-MOBILE IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS. Because the plaintiffs have not come forward with "evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of at-will employment," T-Mobile is entitled to summary judgment on all breach of contract claims.5 Orback v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 97 F.3d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1996). A. Plaintiffs Produce No Evidence of Accepting Any Alleged Contract.

The plaintiffs do not -- and, indeed, cannot -- dispute their own testimony that T-Mobile's employee policies, practices and procedures were irrelevant to their decision to accept and continue employment at T-Mobile. Def. Br. 17, Pl. Br. 4-7, 10-15. This failure to prove that they accepted T-Mobile's alleged contract offer, by itself, entitles TMobile to summary judgment. See Vasey v. Martin Marietta Corp., 29 F.3d 1460, 1465 (10th Cir. 1994); Lee v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1165-66 (D. Colo. 1998)(evidence of allegedly mandatory progressive discipline policy irrelevant if the plaintiff could not prove acceptance of alleged offer); Cont'l Airlines, Inc., v. Keenan,
Osornio contends that T-Mobile breached its allegedly mandatory progressive discipline policy by failing to provide him with a performance plan and verbal warning before it gave him a written warning. Pl. Br. 4-7, 12-15. The plaintiffs provide no information as to how T-Mobile supposedly breached the progressive discipline policy with regard to Reyna and Martinez and, in fact, they admit that Martinez received verbal and written warnings before being terminated for failure to return from medical leave as scheduled. Pl. Br. 8.
5

-8-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 9 of 15

731 P.2d 708, 711-12 (Colo. 1987); CJI-Civ. 4th 31:4(5), Notes On Use ¶ 2 ("[T]he employee must show . . . that the employee's initial or continued employment constituted an acceptance of that offer."). B. Plaintiffs Do Not Dispute T-Mobile's Disclaimers and Their Acknowledgements.

The plaintiffs do not dispute the fact that each of them, on multiple occasions, acknowledged, by signing, clear and conspicuous documents, that T-Mobile had no intention of entering into contracts with its employees relating to employment policies, practices or procedures or of altering its employees' at-will status. Def. Br. 15-17, Pl. Br. 4-7. See Silchia v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 942 F. Supp. 1369, 1374-75 (D. Colo. 1996). Indeed, all plaintiffs admitted reading and signing an acknowledgement disclaiming any such intentions when they received a hard copy of the employee handbook and instructions on how to use T-Mobile's on-line handbook. Ex. A-31;6 Def. Br. 16. C. Plaintiffs Carmona, Fontanet and Williams Left Voluntarily.

Because it is undisputed that Carmona, Fontanet and Williams left T-Mobile voluntarily, they cannot claim a breach of the alleged progressive discipline policy. See Ex. A-15, A-18, A-19; Orback, 97 F.3d at 433-34. D. The Plaintiffs Cannot Show That T-Mobile Had a Mandatory Progressive Discipline Policy.

Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, Evenson v. Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Ins., Co., 879 P.2d 402 (Colo. App. 1993), cert. denied (1994), does not apply here because
Paragraph 4 on page 16 of T-Mobile's opening brief erroneously refers to Exhibit A-32 instead of Exhibit A-31.
6

-9-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 10 of 15

the plaintiffs do not satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the alleged progressive discipline policy was mandatory.7 This showing can be made only by establishing that "the procedures were used in each instance of termination generally." Mariani v. Rocky Mountain Hosp. and Med. Serv., 902 P.2d 429, 435 (Colo. App. 1994) (upholding directed verdict on Evenson contract claim), aff'd. on other grounds, 916 P.2d 519 (Colo. 1996). There must be evidence "that the procedures were always used with reference to employees in plaintiff's department or at her level of management in the company." Id. (emphasis added). This burden must be met with "specific evidence . . . to overcome the presumption of employment at will." DeMarah v. Texaco Group, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 1150, 1158 (D. Colo. 2000) (granting summary judgment on Evenson contract and promissory estoppel claims). In Evenson, the plaintiff met that burden by offering the testimony of several managers, including the Chief Personnel Officer, who testified that he advised the company's CEO and the plaintiff's supervisor that the progressive discipline procedures must be complied with before terminating the plaintiff. Evenson, 879 P.2d at 409. Here, the plaintiffs have not brought forward the necessary evidence to show that T-Mobile had a mandatory progressive discipline policy. Instead, the plaintiffs offer the testimony of Barbara Berry, a former T-Mobile team manager, who testified that the progressive discipline policy she described was applied "with few exceptions." Ex. A, 8:15-9:2.8 Cf. DeMarah, 88 F. Supp. 2d at 1157-58 (manager's testimony that policy
In Evenson, unlike this case, the employer did not effectively disclaim any contract offer. Evenson, 879 P.2d at 409. 8 References to Exhibit A, which is Berry's deposition testimony, are to Exhibit A to plaintiffs' brief. T-Mobile's exhibits are labeled A-___.
7

-10-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 11 of 15

would be applied "probably in most cases" not sufficient); Mariani, 902 P.2d at 435 (plaintiff must show "procedures were always used"). As one of many team managers, Berry was responsible for disciplining the employees she supervised; but, unlike the Chief Personnel Officer in Evenson, she never had responsibility for employee policies throughout the company. Ex. A-35, at ¶¶ 13-16. Moreover, again unlike the Chief Personnel Officer in Evenson, she was not in the position to know how discipline was administered in each and every instance to the several hundred employees at T-Mobile's Colorado Springs call center. Id. Thus, plaintiffs have offered the perspective of one middle level manager, but they have not shown that the entire company or even the Colorado Springs location considered the allegedly progressive discipline system mandatory. Indeed, Cassandra Shepard, T-Mobile's Human Resources Manager testified that the company does not even have a progressive discipline policy and that, instead, discipline measures are determined based upon individual circumstances. Ex. A-35, at ¶ 6. Erika Amezquita Niemeyer, Osornio's team manager at the time of his termination, also testified that T-Mobile does not have a progressive discipline policy and that managers were not required to move through each disciplinary step described by Berry before terminating employees. Ex. A-34, 18:10-19:23. In actual practice, T-Mobile terminated the employment of numerous team coaches and team managers--including Barbara Berry--without following every step of the discipline process Berry described. Ex. A-35 at ¶¶ 10, 17. Under the circumstances, this conflicting evidence does not prevent summary

-11-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 12 of 15

judgment on the contract claims. Instead, this conflict demonstrates that plaintiffs cannot meet their burden under Evenson of demonstrating that the alleged policy was "always used." Mariani, 902 P.2d at 435. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate. E. Any Claim by Osornio for Breach of T-Mobile's Alternate Resolution Procedure Should Be Denied.

Although it is not clear from plaintiffs' brief whether Osornio is claiming, in addition to a breach of the alleged progressive discipline policy, a breach of T-Mobile's ARP, any such implied contract claim should be dismissed. See Pl. Br. 6-7, 9-15. First, as demonstrated above, Osornio did not accept or continue employment because of any employee policy, practice or procedure, and T-Mobile effectively disclaimed any intent to contract. Moreover, in addition to the disclaimers and acknowledgements referred to above, T-Mobile disclaimed any intention, through the ARP, of forming a contract or of altering an employee's at-will status. Ex. A-36. Second, as Osornio's testimony indicates, he did not learn of the ARP until after T-Mobile terminated his employment. Ex. B, 148:6-149:8. Consequently, given this timing, he cannot establish that he accepted or continued employment because of that policy. Third, although Osornio may be claiming that T-Mobile breached the ARP by not conducting its investigation appropriately, there is no evidence that T-Mobile is required to conduct an investigation. Osornio's own belief that such a requirement existed is insufficient. Orback v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 909 F. Supp. 804, 808-09 (D. Colo. 1995) ("The issue under Colorado law is the employer's intent to enter into a binding contractual relationship with an otherwise at-will employee, not the employee's subjective
-12-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 13 of 15

`understanding' of that intent.") (italics in original), aff'd, 97 F.3d 429. The policy itself does not provide for an investigation. A-36. F. T-Mobile Informed Reyna and Martinez that They were Subject to Immediate Termination.

Even assuming arguendo that T-Mobile had a progressive discipline policy, T-Mobile retained the right to terminate employees under certain circumstances without employing progressive discipline. See Kerstien v. McGraw-Hill Co., Inc., 7 Fed. Appx. 868, 874, 2001 WL 327167 (10th Cir. 2001). Reyna knew that T-Mobile's policy provided for immediate termination for employees who inappropriately entered and altered customer accounts but, nonetheless, she entered a family friend's account and added bonus minutes. Ex. A-17, 233:22-236:23, 237:3-247:15; A-25; A-26. Martinez received a letter advising her that her employment would be terminated if she did not return from medical leave as scheduled, but she failed to do so. Ex. A-21; A-22. Therefore, Reyna's and Martinez' actions took them outside any alleged progressive discipline policy and they cannot make out a claim for breach of implied contract. IV. T-MOBILE IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ALL PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIMS. For much the same reasons that the contract claims fail, the plaintiffs' promissory estoppel claims should be dismissed. First, the multiple disclaimers and acknowledgements signed by the plaintiffs make any reliance upon a supposed promise of progressive discipline unreasonable. See Silchia, 942 F. Supp. at 1376. Second, because T-Mobile's employment policies, practices and procedures were not a factor in plaintiffs' decisions to accept and continue employment at T-Mobile, they cannot show

-13-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 14 of 15

that they relied upon any such policy, practice or procedure. See Vasey, 29 F.3d at 1466; Lee, 18 F. Supp. 2d. at 1165. Third, by departing voluntarily, Carmona, Fontanet and Williams cannot show that they detrimentally relied upon any T-Mobile policy. See Orback, 97 F.3d at 433-34. Fourth, the plaintiffs have not made the showing necessary to prove that, notwithstanding T-Mobile's disclaimer and their acknowledgements, T-Mobile had a mandatory progressive discipline policy. See DeMarah, 88 F. Supp. 2d at 1158 (dismissing promissory estoppel claim). Fifth, Osornio cannot show that he relied upon the Alternate Resolution Process to accept and continue employment. Sixth, Reyna and Martinez cannot rely upon any progressive discipline policy in the face of explicit warnings that the actions they took could lead to their immediate termination. Consequently, all promissory estoppel claims should be dismissed. V. T-MOBILE IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON FONTANET'S SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM. Fontanet does not dispute the facts presented by T-Mobile relating to his sexual harassment claim but, instead, he contends that T-Mobile's factual recitation is incomplete even though the parties' citations to his transcript are virtually identical. Compare Pl. Br. 17-19 and Df. Br. 20-21. More important, he does not allege incidents not identified by T-Mobile. Pl. Br. 17-19. Nor does he produce evidence of any comments, invitations, statements, suggestions or innuendoes which could support an inference that Amezquita allegedly touched Fontanet because of his gender. Id. Finally, Fontanet does not dispute his own and his co-plaintiffs' testimony that Amezquita hugged and touched team members without regard to their gender. Id. Consequently, Fontanet cannot show that he was touched because of his gender, that
-14-

Case 1:04-cv-01135-REB-PAC

Document 41

Filed 06/21/2005

Page 15 of 15

the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive, or that he was constructively discharged. See Dick v. Phone Directories Co., Inc., 397 F.3d 1256, 1263 (10th Cir. 2005) (The "critical issue . . . is whether members of one sex are subjected to a disadvantage to which the other sex is not."); Riske v. King Soopers, 366 F.3d 1085, 1091 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 155 F.3d 1257, 1264 (10th Cir. 1998). s/ David R. Hammond David R. Hammond Elizabeth J. McNamee Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP 1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-9400 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on this 21st day of June 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Lee T. Judd, Esq. [email protected]

s/_David R. Hammond______________ David R. Hammond Elizabeth J. McNamee Attorneys for Defendant Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP 1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-9400 Facsimile: (303) 893-1379 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

-15-