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

27

28

John L. Condrey (SBN: 026220) 

Annelise M. Dominguez (SBN: 033299)

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP

One Renaissance Square

Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Telephone: (602) 794-2474

Facsimile: (602) 265-4716

jcondrey@grsm.com

adominguez@grsm.com

Attorneys for Defendant

ASIC North, Inc. a Vermont Corporation 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin W. Glass

Plaintiff,

vs.

AsicNorth, Inc., an Arizona Corporation 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:18-cv-00898 DLR

DEFENDANT ASICNORTH, INC.’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY 

FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Defendant ASIC North, Inc. moves for summary judgment on plaintiff Kevin W. 

Glass’s discrimination and retaliation on the basis of disability under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and interference with business expectancy claims on the grounds that Mr. 

Glass fails to state a valid claim for relief. Mr. Glass alleges that he was discriminated 

and retaliated against on the basis of his disability, but his employment was not 

terminated in response to the charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC. 

Additionally, Mr. Glass does not have evidence connecting any actions of ASIC North to 

his inability to obtain employment. Summary judgment is appropriate.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 1 of 15
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

27

28

-iTABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Relevant Factual Background .................................................................................. 1

II. Argument.................................................................................................................. 3

A. ASIC North Did Not Discriminate Against Mr. Glass Because of a 

Disability and Did Not Deny Any Accommodation to Mr. Glass................ 3

1. Legal Standard ................................................................................... 4

2. Mr. Glass Was Not Qualified to Perform His Job ............................. 4

3. There Is No Connection Between the Claimed Disability and 

the Basis for Termination................................................................... 5

B. Mr. Glass Has Failed to Exhaust His Administrative Remedies As to 

His Undisclosed Disabilities ......................................................................... 6

C. Mr. Glass Cannot Present Evidence to Support the Retaliation Claim......... 7

D. Mr. Glass Cannot Provide Evidence to Support the Tortious 

Interference with Business Expectancy Claim.............................................. 9

E. Mr. Glass Has No Evidence to Support Punitive Damages........................ 11

III. Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 11

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 2 of 15
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

27

28

-1-

I. Relevant Factual Background

ASIC North is a design house and staffing company that provides expert 

engineering services for customers with semiconductor-based products and needs. ASIC 

North hired Mr. Glass as a Senior Circuit Design Engineer to work in its Tempe, Arizona 

office. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 2). Senior Circuit Design Engineer is the highest level of Circuit 

Design Engineers. (Id.) Mr. Glass’ first day of work was on January 12, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 3). 

Mr. Glass was assigned two projects during his employment and he struggled with both 

projects. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5). The persons responsible for managing aspects of Mr. Glass’ work 

were Integrated Circuit Design Manager Jeff Jorvig, Director of Engineering Corey 

Barrows, and Senior Circuit Design Engineer Steve Hoggarth. (Id. at ¶ 6). Mr. Glass was 

expected to run each project from start to finish, which required technical expertise, the 

ability to work with other professionals within ASIC North in a cooperative manner, and 

the ability to represent ASIC North in communicating directly with clients. (Id. at ¶ 5).

Mr. Barrows reported to Mr. Jorvig that Mr. Glass fell below the standard for a 

senior engineer. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 7). A Written Warning was issued to Mr. Glass on May 18, 

2016, addressing the issues of his substandard work performance. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 9; Ex. 13). 

Mr. Glass disputed every aspect of the Written Warning and he communicated directly 

and immediately with Judy Stroh of Human Resources about it. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 11). On May 

20, Mr. Glass filed the first of two charges of discrimination with the EEOC. (Ex. 8). The 

charge identifies discrimination based on retaliation and disability. (Id.) Mr. Glass 

referenced the Written Warning in the charge. (Id.)

In or around June of 2016, Mr. Glass requested accommodations that included 

ergonomic improvements to his work area to help with stress issues on his hands, wrists, 

and forearms. (Ex. 6 at 2). Around June 21, 2016, Chris Hughes of ASIC North evaluated 

Mr. Glass’ work station and gave him a replacement chair. (Ex. 23 at 1). Mr. Glass also 

requested an under the desk, pull out keyboard tray. (Ex. 23 at 1). Around June 22, 2016, 

Mr. Glass told Mr. Hughes that the new chair was giving him good back support but still 

did not help his wrists. (Ex. 18 at 2). In response, ASIC North purchased a Fellowes 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 3 of 15
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

27

28

-2-

Underdesk Keyboard Drawer, Sliding Drawer Bracket on June 24, 2016. (Ex. 18 at 1; Ex. 

19). The only accommodations Mr. Glass requested were to his work space. (Ex. 20 at 

79-80, 83-84, 101, 149). ASIC North accommodated Mr. Glass’ requests.

The decision was made to terminate Mr. Glass’ employment on July 1, 2016. (Ex. 

1 at ¶ 8, Ex. 9 at ¶ 13). An Exit Interview was conducted with Mr. Glass, Mr. Jorvig, 

Design Manager M. Chris Hughes, and Ms. Stroh by telephone. Mr. Jorvig kept a 

summary of the Exit Interview. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 13).

Mr. Glass filed a second charge of discrimination on December 23, 2016. (Ex. 7). 

Ms. Stroh learned of the second charge of discrimination after the Notice of Charge of 

Discrimination was sent by the EEOC on December 28, 2016. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 9). The second 

charge identified discrimination based on retaliation, disability, and age. (Ex. 7). Mr. 

Glass also asserted that he had been given unfavorable references since his discharge. 

(Id.) He claims that he applied for a job and had a bona fide expectation that the interview 

would lead to employment but that a formal job offer never materialized after the 

prospective employer contacted ASIC North, which was listed on Mr. Glass’ resume. 

(Ex. 20 at 122-23, 150-52, 156-57). No manager or technical lead on Mr. Glass’ projects 

has been asked for a reference, and none have given a reference or any other information 

concerning Mr. Glass since he left the employment of ASIC North. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 13). All 

relevant personnel have been instructed to send any reference requests to Human 

Resources, and no requests have been received. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 13). It is the policy of ASIC 

North not to provide positive or negative references, but rather to confirm dates of 

employment only and all relevant personnel are advised to and required to follow the 

policy. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 13).

Mr. Glass is suing ASIC North alleging disability discrimination, retaliation in 

violation of the ADA, and interference with business expectancy arising out of his 

employment with ASIC North. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 5). Mr. Glass asserts that he was 

discriminated against on the basis of his disability. He also claims that ASIC North 

retaliated against him in response to reporting to the EEOC. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 20). Mr. Glass 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 4 of 15
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

27

28

-3-

concludes that ASIC North has interfered with his attempts to get employment. (Doc. 1 at 

¶ 20). But the evidence shows that Mr. Glass’ requests for work space accommodations 

were made. Mr. Glass received a Written Warning before he lodged a charge with the 

EEOC. And Mr. Glass has not and cannot provide evidence, beyond his own assertions, 

that ASIC North has interfered in his ability to gain employment. 

II. Argument

Mr. Glass asserts claims arising from his employment with ASIC North and ASIC 

North’s supposed post-employment actions. Mr. Glass relies heavily on his disabilities, 

but this case is not about Mr. Glass’ disability because ASIC North made the work space 

accommodations that Mr. Glass requested and all of its employment decisions were based 

on his job performance. 

A. ASIC North Did Not Discriminate Against Mr. Glass Because of a 

Disability and Did Not Deny Any Accommodation to Mr. Glass

Mr. Glass alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his disability. 

(Doc. 1 at ¶ 5). Mr. Glass cannot, however, establish a prima facie case of discrimination 

because he cannot show he suffered an adverse employment action or that he was treated 

less favorably than other similarly situated employees without disabilities. Even if Mr. 

Glass could establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, he cannot overcome 

ASIC North’s non-discriminatory reasons for the actions at issue. As described below, 

Mr. Glass was not qualified to perform the job he was hired to perform based on the 

Written Warning, PIP, and performance evaluations documented in contemporaneous 

documents. Mr. Glass also cannot show that there is a connection between the claimed 

disability and the basis for termination of his employment. Additionally, Mr. Glass never 

informed anyone at ASIC North of his disability, so ASIC North could not have 

discriminated against him on the basis of his disability where it had no knowledge of his 

disability. Instead, based on the undisputed facts, ASIC North is entitled to summary 

judgment on Plaintiff’s discrimination and failure to accommodate claims.

/ / /

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 5 of 15
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

27

28

-4-

1. Legal Standard

The ADA provides that “no covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified 

individual with a disability because of a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Under this 

framework, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing 

she: (i) is a member of a protected class; (ii) is qualified for her job; (iii) suffered an 

adverse employment action; and (iv) was treated less favorably than other similarly 

situated employees outside of her protected class. McDonnell v. Douglas Corp. v. Green, 

411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Mr. Glass alleges that the disabilities he suffers from include 

carpel tunnel, COPD, anemia, and asthma. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 8). An action is an “adverse 

employment action” if it materially affects the compensation, terms, conditions, or 

privileges of employment. See Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 

1115, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000). If an employer asserts legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons 

for its adverse employment action, the employee must then prove that the reason 

advanced by the employer is a mere pretext. See Aragon v. Republic Silver State 

Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2002); Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 

889 (9th Cir. 1994).

He claims that ASIC North violated the ADA by not engaging in an interactive 

process with him and failing to accommodate his disability. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 21-22). Mr. 

Glass’ claims are not supported by direct or circumstantial evidence that ASIC North 

discriminated against Mr. Glass beyond his own allegations.

2. Mr. Glass Was Not Qualified to Perform His Job

The evidence shows that Mr. Glass was not qualified to perform the job that he 

was hired to perform. On May 18, 2016, two days before Mr. Glass filed the first charge 

of discrimination, he was issued a Written Warning and placed on a Performance 

Improvement Plan (PIP). (Ex. 9 at ¶ 9; Ex. 13). The Written Warning documents that Mr. 

Glass demonstrated numerous work performance issues, including difficulty listening and 

considering advice from team lead and management, failing to communicate effectively 

with the development team, spending more than the allotted time on projects, and 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 6 of 15
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

27

28

-5-

producing late, poorly summarized, and incomplete design review documentation. (Ex. 

13). Mr. Glass was placed on a PIP where his work would be closely monitored. (Ex. 13). 

He was required to demonstrate immediate improvement and the PIP provided dates and 

milestones that he was expected to meet. (Ex. 13). Mr. Glass disputed every aspect of the 

Written Warning. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 11).

Mr. Glass filed the first charge of discrimination on May 20, 2016. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 5; 

Ex. 8). After the first charge, ASIC North continued to treat Mr. Glass as it did before the 

charge and consistent with the PIP. Mr. Jorvig followed and documented Mr. Glass’ 

performance during the PIP period. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 12). He prepared reports on Mr. Glass’ 

performance and sent them to Ms. Stroh and Mr. Glass’ other supervisors. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 12; 

Ex. 14). Mr. Glass’ performance did not improve. Mr. Jorvig also prepared a K Glass PIP 

Summary, dated June 28, 2016, which is a high-level summary of Mr. Glass’ work for 

the PIP period and a final summary of his observations and conclusions regarding the 

PIP. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 12). Although there were positive aspects of the K Glass PIP Summary, 

Mr. Jorvig’s conclusion was that Mr. Glass did not successfully complete the PIP and 

was not working at the level of a senior circuit design engineer. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 12). Based on 

Mr. Glass’ failure to successfully complete the PIP and issues with his job performance, 

the decision was made to terminate Mr. Glass’ employment on July 1, 2016. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 

13). Mr. Glass has also failed to show that his claimed disability substantially limits his 

work. He testified that since his employment ended with ASIC North, he worked contract 

jobs of varying length for 40 hours per week. (Ex. 20 at 61-65). His testimony defeats his 

claim of being substantially limited during the relevant time period.

3. There Is No Connection Between the Claimed Disability and the 

Basis for Termination

ASIC North cannot have discriminated against Mr. Glass because it had no 

knowledge of his disability. Mr. Glass did not request any accommodation and never 

raised the issue of any disability before he filed the first charge of discrimination, dated 

May 20, 2016. ASIC North first became aware that Mr. Glass claimed to have a disability 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 7 of 15
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

27

28

-6-

when it received the charge. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 5). The charge identified that Mr. Glass alleged 

discrimination based on a disability, but did not identify his disability. (Ex. 8). In 

response, Ms. Stroh inquired about the issue to Mr. Glass’ supervisors and technical leads 

on June 1, 2016. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 5; Ex. 4). The email responses that she received show that 

Mr. Glass had not disclosed a disability to his supervisors or technical leads. (Ex. 4). Ms. 

Stroh spoke with Mr. Glass on June 9, 2016, regarding his claimed disability. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 

6). He identified suffering from repetitive stress from typing, a knee problem, becoming 

dizzy sometimes, allergies, COPD, and that he was tired and needed to make a doctor’s 

appointment. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 6). Ms. Stroh instructed him to make a doctor’s appointment. 

(Ex. 1 at ¶ 6).

Additionally, Mr. Glass has not identified any connection between the basis for 

termination and his claimed disability. The decision to terminate his employment was 

based on his failure to complete the PIP and his job performance. (Ex. 9 at ¶ 13; Ex. 16; 

Ex. 17). ASIC North has provided legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for its 

employment actions. Mr. Glass cannot dispute the basis of ASIC North’s actions. In fact, 

there is no contemporaneous record supporting his claims of disability discrimination 

other than Mr. Glass’ conclusory allegations. This may be a pattern demonstrated by Mr. 

Glass. (Ex. 21). Additionally, Mr. Glass did not inform his supervisors or technical leads 

of any disability, so it cannot be argued that ASIC North discriminated against Mr. Glass 

as claimed where it had no knowledge of his disability. Mr. Glass’ discrimination claim 

fails as a matter of law and summary judgment is appropriate.

B. Mr. Glass Has Failed to Exhaust His Administrative Remedies As to His 

Undisclosed Disabilities

In addition to the claims of carpel tunnel, COPD, anemia, and asthma alleged in 

the Complaint, Mr. Glass has also raised bone spurs and shoulder issues as claimed 

disabilities during the course of discovery. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 7). Claimants establish federal 

court jurisdiction by first exhausting their administrative remedies with the EEOC. See 

Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir. 1990). Incidents of discrimination not 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 8 of 15
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

27

28

-7-

included in an EEOC charge may not be considered by a federal court, unless the new 

claims are “like or reasonably related to the allegations contained in the EEOC 

charge.” See Green v. L.A. Cty. Superintendent of Sch., 883 F.2d 1472, 1476 (9th Cir. 

1989).

In determining whether an allegation is like or reasonably related to allegations 

contained in a previous EEOC charge, the court inquires whether the original EEOC 

investigation would have encompassed the additional charges. See EEOC v. Farmer 

Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1994). Where claims are not so closely related that 

agency action would be redundant, the EEOC must be afforded an opportunity to 

consider disputes before federal suits are initiated. Brown v. Puget Sound Elec. 

Apprenticeship & Training Tr., 732 F.2d 726, 730 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding plaintiff failed 

to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing second charge of discrimination). During 

the course of discovery in this matter, Mr. Glass has now raised issues related to his 

shoulders and bone spurs. (Ex. 20 at 102-05). Mr. Glass has not provided time frames for 

the treatment or any documents supporting his claimed treatment. Neither the first nor the 

second charge of discrimination identified such issues. As a result, Mr. Glass failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies as to his shoulders and bone spurs.

C. Mr. Glass Cannot Present Evidence to Support the Retaliation Claim

Mr. Glass asserts a disability retaliation claim against ASIC North. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 5).

He claims that ASIC North retaliated against him when he filed the charge of 

discrimination with the EEOC and interfered with his attempts to obtain employment. As 

discussed in detail below, Mr. Glass does not have any evidence beyond his own 

speculation and deductive reasoning that ASIC North took any action regarding his 

attempts to gain employment. ASIC North addresses those claims separately and 

incorporates that argument by this reference.

A plaintiff has the initial burden of making out a prima facie case of retaliation. 

Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003). If a plaintiff is able to 

do so, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 9 of 15
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

27

28

-8-

reason for the adverse employment action. Id. If a defendant articulates such a legitimate 

reason, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the reason was a pretext for a discriminatory 

motive. Id.

A prima facie case of retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) requires 

engaging in an activity protected by statute, suffering adverse employment action, and a 

causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. Barnett v. U.S. 

Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000). A materially adverse action is one that 

would dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of 

discrimination. Burlington N. Santa Fe. RR. Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 2415 (2006). 

Mr. Glass cannot show the requisite adverse employment action or a causal 

connection between the protected activity and any adverse employment action. The 

Written Warning and PIP cannot be considered retaliatory because they are dated May 

18, 2016, and predate Mr. Glass’ filing of the first charge of discrimination, dated May 

20, 2016. (Ex. 13). On May 19, 2016, Ms. Stroh discussed the Written Warning and PIP 

over the telephone and Ms. Stroh documented the conversation. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 3; Ex. 2). It 

cannot be argued that the Written Warning and PIP is an adverse employment action that 

dissuaded Mr. Glass from making or supporting a charge of discrimination because he 

filed his first charge of discrimination two days later on May 20, 2016.

After Mr. Glass filed his first charge of discrimination, ASIC North engaged with 

Mr. Glass and accommodated his sole request for an accommodation. Mr. Glass 

requested ergonomic improvements to his work space. (Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 6-7; Ex. 6; Ex. 18; Ex. 

19). Mr. Hughes of ASIC North performed an assessment of Mr. Glass’ work space 

around June 21, 2016, including providing him with a different chair. (Ex. 6 at 1). 

Around June 22, 2016, Mr. Glass said that the replacement chair was giving him good 

back support, but did not help with his wrists, so he requested a keyboard tray. (Ex. 18 at 

1). On June 24, 2016, within two days of Mr. Glass’ request, ASIC North ordered him a 

keyboard tray. (Ex. 18 at 1) ASIC North accommodated Mr. Glass’ only request for an 

accommodation, a request for an ergonomic evaluation based on his work space due to 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 10 of 15
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

27

28

-9-

stress on his arms, hands, and wrists. (Ex. 20 at 79-80, 149). The Complaint confirms that 

his only request was for the keyboard tray and ergonomic work station. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 12).

Based on Mr. Jorvig’s reports as to Mr. Glass’ performance, the K Glass PIP 

Summary, and Mr. Glass’ failure to successfully complete the PIP, the decision was made 

to terminate Mr. Glass’ employment on July 1, 2016. Mr. Jorvig, Mr. Hughes, and Ms. 

Stroh, by telephone, participated in an exit interview with Mr. Glass, which Mr. Jorvig 

documented. (Ex. 16). Mr. Glass was again not dissuaded from making a charge of 

discrimination because he filed a second charge on December 23, 2016. (Ex. 7). As 

demonstrated by the sworn testimony of Ms. Stroh and Mr. Jorvig and the 

contemporaneous documents submitted, the decision to terminate Mr. Glass’ employment 

was based on his failure to successfully complete the PIP and improve his performance. 

Moreover, Mr. Glass has not presented any contemporaneous record supporting his 

retaliation claims. In the absence of adverse employment action and a connection 

between any adverse employment action and engaging in protected activity, Mr. Glass 

has failed to establish the essential elements of his claim and cannot maintain a retaliation 

claim.

D. Mr. Glass Cannot Provide Evidence to Support the Tortious Interference 

with Business Expectancy Claim

Mr. Glass alleges that he would have obtained employment but did not as a result 

of the prospective employers contacting ASIC North. Mr. Glass listed ASIC North on his 

resume. (Ex. 20 at 124). He alleges that he interviewed at Apple and that he was told they 

were really interested in him for the job and asked if he would take the job if they offered 

it to him. (Ex. 20 at 122). Mr. Glass told them that he was really interested. (Id. at 122-

23). During the interview, they discussed his employment at ASIC North and they told 

him that they were going to call ASIC North. (Id.) Mr. Glass did not receive a call back 

so he called the recruiter, Stacy Castleberry, who hung up on him. (Id.) The recruiter did 

not say that Mr. Glass had a negative reference, he merely said that Mr. Glass did not get 

the job. (Id. at 151:19-21). Mr. Glass is not sure whether the Apple recruiter actually 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 11 of 15
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

27

28

-10-

contacted ASIC North or even referenced ASIC North. (Id. at 150:10-152:4).

Mr. Glass also had a job offer from Northrop Grumman. (Id. at 156:22-157:13). 

Northrop Grumman made the offer and then completed a security screening. (Id. at 157). 

Northrop Grumman told Mr. Glass they were pulling his offer because he did not pass the 

security check. (Id.) Mr. Glass received files from the background check agency showing 

that it verified all of his employment, he passed the drug test, but Northrop Grumman still 

rescinded the job offer. (Id.)

To assert a claim for tortious interference, a plaintiff must allege (1) the existence 

of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) the interferer’s knowledge 

of the relationship or expectancy; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a 

breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resultant damages. 

Antwerp Diamond Exch. of Am., Inc. v. Better Bus. Bureau of Maricopa Cty., Inc., 130 

Ariz. 523, 530, 637 P.2d 733, 739-40 (1981). A plausible claim for relief requires more 

than the speculative hope of a business expectancy. Dube v. Likins, 216 Ariz. 406, 414, ¶

14, 167 P.3d 93, 99 (App. 2007). Here, Mr. Glass presents nothing more than his own 

deductive reasoning. Mr. Glass cannot identify any individuals from ASIC North that 

gave bad references to his prospective employers. (Ex. 20 at 122, 154:10-18). Mr. Glass

merely speculates that “[i]t could have been any of them.” (Ex. 20 at 122). By contrast, 

no manager or technical lead of ASIC North has been asked for a reference or provided 

any information concerning Mr. Glass since he left its employment. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 13). Mr. 

Glass also cannot present evidence of anything more than his own hope of a business 

expectancy with any of the prospective employers. That is not enough to for a plausible 

tortious interference claim.

Ultimately, Mr. Glass has no evidence of interference by ASIC North beyond his 

own speculation. Conclusory allegations or mere assertions are not facts that a court can 

consider in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Courts can consider only admissible evidence in ruling on a motion 

for summary judgment. Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Servs., Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1181 (9th 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 12 of 15
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

27

28

-11-

Cir. 1988). In the absence of evidence to support the requisite elements, the tortious 

interference claim fails as a matter of law and summary judgment is appropriate.

E. Mr. Glass Has No Evidence to Support Punitive Damages

Mr. Glass claims that he is entitled to punitive damages in relation to his tortious 

interference claim. A plaintiff must be entitled to actual damages before being entitled to 

punitive damages. Med. Laboratory Management Consultants v. Am. Broadcasting 

Companies, Inc., 306 F.3d 806, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). Mr. Glass has only presented 

speculation and his own conclusion that ASIC North must have interfered with his 

attempts to obtain employment because he thinks that two prospective employers may 

have contacted ASIC North and that he did not obtain a job from them after thinking he 

would.

Punitive damages require proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 

defendant engaged in aggravated and outrageous conduct with an evil mind. Hyatt 

Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, 184 Ariz. 120, 132, 907 P.2d 506, 518 

(App. 1995). Such situations occur where the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff or 

where the defendant consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created a 

substantial risk of significant harm to others. Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 162, 

726 P.2d 565, 578 (1986). Speculation and conclusory allegations cannot be the basis for 

awarding punitive damages. Mr. Glass has no specifics regarding ASIC North and no 

evidence of any action taken by ASIC North regarding Mr. Glass’ attempts to obtain 

employment. The undisputed evidence shows that ASIC North has not had contact with 

any of Mr. Glass’ prospective employers. (Ex. 1 at ¶ 13). He therefore cannot present 

evidence of any way in which he was damaged as a result of any action by ASIC North. 

Mr. Glass has not met his burden of proof as to punitive damages and ASIC North is 

entitled to summary judgment.

III. Conclusion

Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no disputed issues of material 

fact. Mr. Glass has asserted discrimination and retaliation claims on the basis of his 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 13 of 15
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

27

28

-12-

disability. Mr. Glass alleges that he was discriminated and retaliated against on the basis 

of his disability, but ASIC North’s actions were solely based on his job performance. Mr. 

Glass also asserts that ASIC North has tortiously interfered with his attempts to obtain 

employment. He has not and cannot submit evidence beyond his own speculation about 

ASIC North’s alleged interference. In the absence of evidence to support his claims and 

evidence cutting against his claims, ASIC North is entitled to summary judgment.

Dated this 15th, day of April, 2019.

GORDON REES SCULLY 

MANSUKHANI, LLP

By: /s/ _Annelise M. Dominguez

John L. Condrey

Annelise M. Dominguez

Attorneys for Defendant

ASIC North, Inc. a Vermont

Corporation 

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 14 of 15
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

27

28

-13-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 15, 2019, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

Elizabeth D. Tate

2953 North 48th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85018-7749

attorneyelizabethtate@yahoo.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Kevin W. Glass

By: Angelina Chavez

Case 2:18-cv-00898-DLR Document 43 Filed 04/16/19 Page 15 of 15