Penry v. Federal Financial Bank out-of Topeka, 970 F. Supp. 833 (D. Kan. 1997)

D. Brad Bailey, Place of work away from You.S. Atty., Topeka, KS, Paul F. Figley, Jeffrey L. Karlin, U.S. Dept. off Justice, Municipal Department, Arizona, *836 DC, Frank W. Hunger, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Municipal Division, Washington, DC, to possess You.S.

This matter try until the court into defendants’ Motion having Realization View (Doctor. 104). Plaintiff features filed good Memorandum opposed to Defendants’ Activity (Doc. 121). Defendants keeps registered an answer (Doctor. 141). This case appears from plaintiff’s allege regarding hostile office and you may retaliation when you look at the citation off Identity VII of Civil rights Work away from 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and for intentional infliction off emotional stress. On the reasons established lower than, defendants’ motion is actually granted.

The following the fact is often uncontroverted otherwise, in the event that controverted, construed inside a light really beneficial to your plaintiff just like the non-swinging group. Immaterial affairs and factual averments perhaps not properly supported by the latest list are omitted.

Government Financial Lender out-of Topeka («FHLB») employed Michele Penry («Penry») once the an effective clerk within its collateral company of March 1989 so you’re able to March 1994, first according to the supervision off Sonia Betsworth («Betsworth») and then, while it began with November out-of 1992, underneath the oversight regarding Charles Waggoner («Waggoner»)

FHLB hired Waggoner inside November out-of 1989 as the equity comment movie director. As an element of their duties, Waggoner used into-web site inspections from security within credit creditors. Brand new guarantee assistants, also Penry, Debra Gillum («Gillum»), and you may Sherri Bailey («Bailey»), and guarantee comment assistant, Sally Zeigler («Zeigler»), grabbed converts associated Waggoner during these examination trips. As the security comment movie director, Waggoner overseen only the security opinion secretary, Zeigler. The guy did not track the collateral assistants until he is actually called guarantee administrator into the November 1992. On an outing, although not, Waggoner are obviously in control and is accountable for comparing the new collateral personnel one to then followed him.

Federal Financial Lender Of TOPEKA and its particular agents, and you can Charles R

At the time Waggoner worked with Penry, basic because co-employee immediately after which due to the fact their unique management, he engaged in make and therefore Penry says composed an aggressive performs environment inside the concept of Term VII. Penry presents evidence of numerous cases of Waggoner’s alleged misconduct. This type of or any other relevant topic truth is established in more detail regarding court’s conversation.

A court will promote conclusion view up on a showing that there is no genuine issue of procedure truth and this the movant try permitted judgment just like the an issue of legislation. Fed. Roentgen.Civ.P. 56(c). This new laws will bring you to «new mere lifestyle of some alleged informative argument within people will not beat an or safely supported activity to own realization wisdom; the requirement is that indeed there end up being zero genuine problem of thing facts.» Anderson v. Liberty Reception, Inc. loans Holyoke, 477 You.S. 242, 247-forty eight, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). The newest substantive legislation refers to and this truth is question. Id. in the 248, 106 S. Ct. on 2510. A conflict more than a material truth is genuine if research is really that a fair jury might discover on the nonmovant. Id. «Simply problems more affairs that may properly change the consequence of the newest fit under the ruling rules usually securely prevent the new entryway from conclusion view.» Id.

Brand new movant contains the initially weight off exhibiting its lack of a genuine issue of procedure fact. Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat’l Laboratory., 992 F.2d 1033, 1036 (10th Cir. 1993). The latest movant could possibly get launch their weight «by `showing’ which is, pointing out into region courtroom there is a lack away from facts to support this new nonmoving party’s instance.» Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The latest movant shouldn’t have to negate new nonmovant’s allege. Id. within 323, 106 S. Ct. at the 2552-53.