Archive for the ‘Employment law’ category

Judge Dale A. Kimball – Motion for Summary Judgment granted

March 13, 2007

CHRIS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, vs. TIM DAHLE IMPORTS, INC., a Utah corporation et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:03CV46 DAK

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16298

March 7, 2007

Plaintiff filed suit against Tim Dahle for alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act.  As stated by the Court: “to establish a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act, Plaintiff must show (1) that she was performing work that was “substantially equal” to that of male coworkers, with “equality” being measured on the basis of the skills, duties, supervision, effort, and responsibilities of the jobs; (2) the conditions where work was performed were basically the same; and (3) male employees were paid more.”

The Court found that Plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case.  “Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to demonstrate that she and the other male managers worked under similar working conditions or that the same effort was required.”

Motion for Summary Judgment granted.  Case dismissed.

Judge Ted Stewart – Motion for Summary Judgment granted

September 15, 2006

JODI NIX, Plaintiff, vs. PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation, LLOYD D. EVANS, an individual and Chief of the Park City Police Department, PHIL KIRK, an individual and a Lieutenant in the Park City Police Department, THOMAS B. BAKALY, an individual and City Manager of the Park City Municipal Corporation, Defendants.

Case No. 2:04cv01197TS

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65232

September 11, 2006

Judge Ted Stewart

Plaintiff Jodi Nix, a former Park City police officer, alleged a “class-of-one” equal protection claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants included Park City, two high ranking officers within the police department, and the Park City city manager. 

The court pointed out that: “an individual asserting a class-of-one equal protection claim must prove that he or she was singled out for different treatment or persecution due to some personal animosity, ill-will or malice by the defendant.”

Judge Stewart opined that plaintiff failed to show either: (1) that she was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals; and (2) that there was any malice, ill-will or animosity between plaintiff and the individual defendants.

Motion for Summary Judgment granted. Case dismissed.

Judge Tena Campbell – Motion for Summary Judgment denied

September 10, 2006

JOHN C. WOOD, Plaintiff v. AT&T CORP., Defendant

Case No. 2:05 CV 131

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63885

September 6, 2006

Judge Tena Campbell

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that his former employer, AT&T Corp.: (1) did not grant him applicable leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”); and (2) alleges his employment was improperly terminated as a direct result of AT&T’s failure to grant him requested leave.

In denying the motion, the court states: “The parties dispute whether [Plaintiff] requested additional FMLA leave time, which possibly would have excused his otherwise unapproved absences. Further, it is not clear from the record whether AT&T would have imposed different performance criteria on [Plaintiff] if extended FMLA leave had been granted. Accordingly, AT&T has not established that it is entitled to summary judgment.”

Motion for summary judgment denied.

Judge Dale A. Kimball – Motion for Summary Judgment granted

September 6, 2006

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62521

ERIC PLAYER, Plaintiff, vs. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Defendant.

Case No. 2:05CV753

August 31, 2006

Plaintiff brought this case under ERISA for statutory penalties alleging that his employer, Northrop Grumman, failed to send him full copies of the applicable long-term disability policy he requested. Defendant moved for summary judgment.

Motion for summary judgment was granted since, among other reasons, 29 USC Section 1024(b)(4) requires a participant to request plan documents from the Plan Administrator and only the Plan Administrator can be subject to the statutory penalty for failing to provide the requested documents. Plaintiff’s employer was held to not be the Plan Administrator. The Plan Administrator was not named as a defendant in this case.

Judge J. Thomas Greene – Motion for Summary Judgment denied

August 29, 2006

Miller v. Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc.

1:05-cv-052

August 28, 2006

Judge J. Thomas Greene

Plaintiff had been employed as a truck driver with SAIA for 12 years.  In short, defendant claims Miller was fired because of multiple wrecks and “agressive driving.” Plaintiff claims these are merely pretexts and asserts he was terminated because of his “whistle blowing” actions after plaintiff refused to make runs that plaintiff claims would require him to be in violation of the Hours of Service regulations as set forth by the Department of Transportation.

After reviewing the arguments of counsel, the Court ruled that there are “several genuine issues of material fact in dispute in this case” and denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Order