1

 “[#35]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

2

 “Colorado recognizes a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (sometimes

referred to as a ‘wrongful termination’ claim).”

The essential elements for proving a wrongful discharge claim are (1) the

employer directed the employee to perform an illegal act as part of the

employee's duties; (2) the action directed by the employer would violate a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02239-REB-KMT

(Consolidated with Civil Action No. 11-cv-02361-REB-KMT)

EDIE GARCIA, and

NICHOLE WITTER-GORTNER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HOTEL POWERS, INC., d/b/a Hampton Inn,

Defendant.

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is Defendant’s Motion Summary Judgment [#35],1

 filed

July 2, 2012. I have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 133 (federal

question). 

I find and conclude that plaintiffs have failed to establish one or more essential

elements of their state law claim for wrongful termination. See Martinez v. Eagle River

Water & Sanitation District, 2007 WL 2572413 at *5 (D. Colo. Sept. 6, 2007) (citing

Martin Marietta v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100, 109 (Colo.1992)).2

 Accordingly, defendant’s

Case 1:11-cv-02239-REB-KMT Document 47 Filed 11/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
statute or clearly expressed public policy; (3) the employee was

terminated as a result of refusing to perform the illegal act; and (4) the

employer was aware or should have been aware that the employee's

refusal was based upon the employee's reasonable belief that the act

was illegal.

Martinez v. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, 2007 WL 2572413 at *5 (internal citations omitted). 

Plaintiffs present no evidence or argument to support the conclusion that they were asked to perform any

illegal acts in connection with their employment with defendant.

2

motion for summary judgment as to that claim will be granted. 

However, regarding plaintiffs’ remaining claims, alleging violations of Title VII,

having reviewed the motions and responses and the apposite arguments, authorities,

and evidence presented by the parties, it is apparent that there exist genuine issues of

material fact that are not appropriate for summary resolution. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That Defendant’s Motion Summary Judgment [#35], filed July 2, 2012, is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 

2. That the motion is GRANTED with respect to plaintiffs’ Third Claim for Relief

alleging wrongful termination in violation of Colorado state law, as set forth in their

Complaint and Jury Demand [#1], filed August 25, 2011;

3. That at the time judgment enters, judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of

defendant, Hotel Powers, Inc. d/b/a Hampton Inn, against plaintiffs, Edie Garcia and

Nichole Witter-Gortner, as to plaintiffs’ Third Claim for Relief alleging wrongful

termination in violation of Colorado state law, as set forth in their Complaint and Jury

Demand [#1], filed August 25, 2011; provided, that the judgment as to this claim shall

be with prejudice; and 

Case 1:11-cv-02239-REB-KMT Document 47 Filed 11/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

 The issues raised by and inherent to the motion for summary judgment are fully briefed,

obviating the necessity for evidentiary hearing or oral argument. Thus, the motion stands submitted on the

briefs. Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) and (d). Geear v. Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th

Cir.1988) (holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by court's review of

documents submitted by parties).

3

4. That in all other respects, the motion is DENIED.

3

Dated November 1, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02239-REB-KMT Document 47 Filed 11/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3