Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Montes-Saavedra v. Charter Communications LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

May 16, 2018

ALICIA MONTES-SAAVEDRA, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          John McBRYDE United States District Judge.

         Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, Charter Communications, LLC, for summary judgment. The court, having considered the motion, the response of plaintiff, Alicia Montes-Saavedra, the reply, the record, the summary judgment evidence, and applicable authorities, finds that the motion should be granted.

         I. Plaintiff's Claims

         Plaintiff filed her original complaint on July 13, 2017. Doc.[1] 1, In it, she alleged:

         Plaintiff began working for defendant on or about January 25, 2013. Doc. 1 ¶ 5. On several occasions, from June 2014 through October 2014, Troy Hopson ("Hopson") would hug and rub on plaintiff's lower back. Plaintiff asked Hopson to stop, but he would not. Id. ¶ 6. During this same time, Glen Moore ("Moore") would say things like, "you can come and sit on my lap" and plaintiff would tell him to stop. Id. ¶ 7. During the week of October 17, 2014, Moore said "nice view" while standing behind plaintiff, looking down at her as she sat at her desk. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff went to the director of human resources, Maria Cicconi ("Cicconi") with "this report of harassment" on October 17, 2014, and was told that all plaintiff did was complain. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff was written up on October 21, 2014, for supposed insubordination, and refused to sign the write up. Id. ¶ 10. On October 27, 2018, plaintiff was fired and told it was due to job performance. Id. ¶ 11. The reason for her termination was pretextual. Id. ¶ 12.

         Plaintiff says that she is suing for sex discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliation. Id. ¶ 4. She also says that defendant's actions amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. ¶ 15.

         II.

         Grounds of the Motion

         Defendant maintains that plaintiff cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact as to any of the claims asserted by her.

         III.

         Applicable Summary Judgment Principles

         Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall grant summary judgment on a claim or defense if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986}. The movant bears the initial burden of pointing out to the court that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 325 (1986). The movant can discharge this burden by pointing out the absence of evidence supporting one or more essential elements of the nonmoving party's claim, "since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 323. Once the movant has carried its burden under Rule 56(a), the nonmoving party must identify evidence in the record that creates a genuine dispute as to each of the challenged elements of its case. Id. at 324; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) ("A party asserting that a fact ... is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . ."). If the evidence identified could not lead a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the nonmoving party as to each essential element of the nonmoving party's case, there is no genuine dispute for trial and summary judgment is appropriate. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 597 (1986). In Mississippi Prot. & Advocacy Sys., Inc. v. Cotten, the Fifth Circuit explained:

Where the record, including affidavits, interrogatories, admissions, and depositions could not, as a whole, lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.