Free Reply in Support of Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Ernest Calderón (#007677) Faith C. Klepper (#021320) CALDERÓN LAW OFFICES 2020 N. Central Ave., Suite 1110 Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 265-0004 Attorneys for Defendant Chase BankCard Services, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JOYCE A. CORRALES, Plaintiff, vs. CHASE BANKCARD SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., Defendant. No. CIV 02-2157-PHX-SRB DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS (Honorable Susan Bolton) (Oral Argument Requested)

Defendant Chase BankCard Services, Inc., provides the following reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Separate Statement of Facts: In her Response, Plaintiff states that "where facts alleged by the Defendant are disputed

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

and/or supplemented by additional facts from Plaintiff Corrales' Declaration, Exhibit 1 infra, such facts relied upon by the Plaintiff herein are under oath, as proved [sic] for by 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the Plaintiff's verification at the conclusion of her declaration." Because Joyce Corrales did not read and/or sign the declaration upon which Plaintiff relies for all of the disputed and supplemental facts in her Response, the declaration is an unauthenticated, unsworn statement upon which this Court cannot rely to defeat summary judgment. See Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, section VI at

25

11 and Second Amended Motion to Withdraw, generally.
26

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not

1

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 84

Filed 08/04/2006

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3

submitted sufficient competent evidence contradicting any statement of fact set forth in Defendant's Separate Statement of Fact and all such statements must be deemed admitted. Nevertheless, Defendant will respond individually to each allegation set forth in the

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Plaintiff's Response. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Plaintiff admits. Plaintiff admits. Plaintiff admits. Plaintiff admits. Plaintiff admits Plaintiff admits. Although Plaintiff alleges that Chase Bright asked inappropriate questions during

his interview, she provides no "evidence" of this other than her own self-serving allegations. Both Chase Bright and an eyewitness, Derek Cheu, have testified that the interview was appropriately conducted and the questions were within the scope of the investigation. See Declaration of Chase Bright, Exhibit 4; Declaration of Derek Cheu, Exhibit 3. Additionally, Plaintiff does not dispute the evidence provided by Defendant that all other witness interviews, including those of her male co-workers, were conducted in the same manner as her interview. Exhibit 4A at CBSJC0100. 8. Plaintiff admits. Plaintiff's additional allegations are unsupported by any

competent evidence, only her unsworn self-serving allegations, and are disputed. See ¶ 7 above. 9. Plaintiff admits she believed she was being interviewed because she was alleged

to have sexually harassed someone, but claims that she never made any remarks that would lead her to draw such a conclusion. In support of that claim, Plaintiff produced no competent evidence other than her unsworn self-serving statement. However, she admitted to EEOC

investigator Orlando Garcia in April 2002 that she did make comments about Brooke King's
2

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 84

Filed 08/04/2006

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

breasts at the group lunch in question. Exhibit 8, EEOC Investigation Memorandum of Orlando Garcia at ¶2. 10. 11. Plaintiff admits. Although Plaintiff claims to dispute this statement of fact, nothing she alleges

contradicts Defendant's statement that Plaintiff never actually told any of her supervisors that she wanted to make a sexual harassment complaint against Chase Bright. 12. Plaintiff admits most of this statement of fact. She claims to dispute one part of

this statement by alleging that she felt upset when she returned to work the next day. Plaintiff's complaint she was traumatized and upset does not support her claim that she could no longer do her job in the retention department because of a single interview. She admits that once she found out she was not the alleged harasser, she was "okay" and "wanted to go [back] to work." Exhibit 6, Deposition of Joyce Corrales, at 107:11-13, 21-23. Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that there was no problem with her job performance, nor does she provide any evidence indicating her work duties suffered at all after the interview. Id. at 97:9-17. Accordingly, Plaintiff admits her work performance did not suffer because of the alleged harassment. 13. 14. Plaintiff admits. Plaintiff claims to dispute this statement of fact but does not provide any evidence

to contradict the fact that Plaintiff refused to be interviewed and immediately resigned, without talking to her supervisor Ms. Mott, or anyone else. She does not provide any evidence to contradict the statement of fact that she made no complaint about Mr. Bright's conduct of the interview to her supervisor. Plaintiff cites a portion of deposition testimony regarding the note she wrote and told a receptionist, "This is for Chase Bright," but conveniently stops the quote right before she admits she did not say a word to her supervisor Traci Mott. Q. I'm sorry, let me back up. What I meant to say was, did you talk to anybody else at work before you left?

3

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 84

Filed 08/04/2006

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A. Not that I remember, no. I remember just writing it really quick, and then gathering my purse and stuff, and then going downstairs and giving it to the receptionist with my badge. Q. Did you actually tell Traci you were quitting? A. I don't ­ I don't remember talking to Traci after she told me that he wanted to see me again. I just remember gathering my stuff and writing that note [to Chase Bright] and bringing it down there. Exhibit 6 at 104:15-25 ­ 105:1. (Emphasis added.) See also Id. at 100: 18-19 ("I don't remember saying anything to Traci at the time after she told me that."). Therefore, Plaintiff concedes that she did not make any claim of sexual harassment to any supervisor at Chase before she quit.

8

15.
9 10

Plaintiff does not provide any evidence to support her allegations that she was

"compelled to resign rather than re-submit to more interrogation." All the evidence in this case squarely rebuts and disposes of Plaintiff's self-serving allegations.
11 12

Plaintiff provides no

competent evidence other than her self-serving allegation that she was not confrontational with Ms. King in her telephone conversation. That allegation is disputed in her own deposition, in
13

which she testified she called Ms. King to "give her a piece of my mind." Exhibit 6 at 97:23.
14

Additionally, the testimony of disinterested witness Brooke King states that "she was mad at me
15

[because] she felt I had turned her in for sexual harassment" and that Plaintiff did not tell Ms.
16

King of her allegations against Chase Bright. Exhibit 1 at 20:2-3, 12-23.
17

16.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Once again, although Plaintiff does not dispute the statement of fact made by

Defendant, she attempts to manufacture a question of fact by making vague allegations that do not contradict anything Defendant actually stated in its sixteenth statement of fact. 17. Plaintiff does not dispute that she failed to comply with repeated requests for

discovery as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) and 41(b) and the previous order of this Court. She does not provide any justification for this failure to comply with Defendant's requests. 18. In the alleged Declaration of Joyce Corrales, it is claimed that Mr. Bright told her

Plaintiff had to answer questions about sexual comments made between her and Ms. King during the interview he conducted into Ms. King's sexual harassment allegation. However, she does not allege or provide any competent evidence to prove that he threatened to change the conditions of
4

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 84

Filed 08/04/2006

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

her employment if she did not cooperate. In her deposition, she testified that Mr. Bright only told her that she had to cooperate with the open investigation. Exhibit 6 at 90:9-10. Her subjective belief that she thought she would be fired if she did not answer the questions is explained by her subsequent statement that she "felt like, well, if it was a complaint against me, then I'm defending myself, because I wasn't the only one who said those things." Exhibit 6 at 217: 23-25. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4th day of August, 2006. CALDERÓN LAW OFFICES

_s/Faith C. Klepper_________________ Ernest Calderón Faith C. Klepper Attorneys for Defendant Chase BankCard Services, Inc.

ORIGINAL of the foregoing electronically filed this 4th day of August, 2006, with: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Arizona COPY of the foregoing mailed this 4th day of August, 2006, to: The Honorable Susan R. Bolton United States District Court COPY of the foregoing mailed this 4th day of August, 2006, to: Mark Brinton 1745 South Alma School Road, Suite 100 Mesa, Arizona 85210-3010 Attorney for Plaintiff

s/Faith C. Klepper
5

Case 2:02-cv-02157-SRB

Document 84

Filed 08/04/2006

Page 5 of 5