Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91729404/Le-v-Wilmington-D-ct
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 07:53:58
Document Index: 382456853

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 2000', '§ 1985', '§ 1986', '§710', '§ 1986']

T. LE,Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 08-615-LPSCITY OF WILMINGTON,JOSEPH
CAPODANNO, JR., andJAMES
O'DONNELL,Defendants.
On September 24,2008, Le T. Le ("Le"
"Plaintiff") filed the present lawsuit (DocketItem ("D.I.")
Wilmington ("City"), the City's Manager
IntegratedTechnologies, Joseph
Capodanno, Jr. ("Capodanno"), and the City's Director
IntegratedTechnologies, James J. O'Donnell ("O'Donnell") (collectively, "Defendants"). Le alleges:(i) copyright infringement in violation
1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101,
(ii) discrimination in violation
U.S.C. § 2000e,
("Title VII"), as well as 42 U.S.C.
1981 and 1983; (iii) conspiracy to interfere with civilrights in violation
42 U.S.C. § 1985; and (iv) neglect
refusal to prevent conspiracy inviolation
42 U.S.C. § 1986. (D.I. 17) In his Amended Complaint (the "AmendedComplaint"),
also raises state law discrimination claims, pursuant to 19 Del. C. §710,
and a claim for
tort under Delaware state law.
(Id.)l
IThe only difference between Plaintiff's original complaint and his Amended Complaintis his amendment to his
tort claim, as permitted by Judge Davis' June
Order. (D.I. 17)
!ase 1:08-cv-00615-LPS Document 160 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1643
2008, this case was assigned to the Honorable Legrome D. Davis
Pennsylvania, sitting as a Visiting Judge in the District
Judge Davis approved the parties'
stipulation consenting to the exercise
and referred the case to the undersigned. (D.L
Pending before the Court are two defense motions for summary judgment:
Defendants'Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Counts III-VIII
Amended Complaint(the "Discrimination Motion") (D.!. 138), and (ii) the City's Motion for Summary Judgment withrespect to Counts I-II
Amended Complaint (the "Copyright Motion") (D.!. 140).The Court heard oral argument
August 3,2010 hearing (D.!. 158) (hereinafter "Tr.").)For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant both motions.
PlaintiffLe
Le was hired
the Defendant City
Wilmington as an InformationAnalyst
3,2003.
(D.!. 142 Ex. A at 4) He worked as part
the Network2Judge Stark was sworn in as a United States District Judge
16,2010.
3Pursuant to
request (D.L 143 at 1), the Court will also dismiss Counts IV
1981 claim against the individual defendants), VI (conspiracy under
1985), and VII(conspiracy under § 1986)
the Amended Complaint. As all
s claims have nowbeen resolved, the Court will further order this case closed.
Court has gleaned the following factual background from the parties' summaryjudgment filings and review
the record provided
the parties. The Court has also foundmuch help in Judge Davis' June 19, 2009 Order, which set forth the pertinent background
thecase. (D.L 16) Where there are disputes
fact, all reasonable inferences are drawn in
favor. As is evident from the grant
summary judgment to Defendants, the Court does not findany genuine issues
material fact.2
!ase 1:08-cv-00615-LPS Document 160 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 1644
at 121;
Le Dep. at 5-6) Plaintiff s duties involved support andtechnical assistance to users
the City's computer network. (D.I. 142 Ex. A at 145)In 2003, Plaintiff decided to attempt to develop an "Instant Ticketing" software programfor use
the City'S Department
Licenses and Inspections ("L&I"). (D.I. 144 Ex.
Le Dep.at 257) Jeffrey Starkey, the City's Commissioner
ofL&I,
first described the problem to him.(D.I. 142 Ex. A at 262; D.L 144 Ex.
Le Dep. at 260-61) The program was intended to allowthe L&I to keep track
citations by computer software rather than paper tickets. (D.I. 144 Ex.
Dep. at 263-64) Plaintiffbelieved that
the program was successful he would be able toprovide it to the City and market it to other municipalities.Plaintiff claimed that his immediate supervisor, Terry Jones, expressly forbade Plaintifffrom working on the Instant Ticketing program while at work.
Plaintiff asserts that he thenbegan working on the program exclusively on his own time in his own home. In 2004, Plaintiffcompleted a prototype
the program and was authorized
Jeffery Starkey, the City'sCommissioner ofL&I, to install the software on the City's computer network for testing andcomment
L&I personneL (D.I. 142 Ex. A at 378; D.L 144 Ex.
Le Dep. at 286-87)The Network Division consisted
Plaintiff, who is
Vietnamese descent, and two otherindividuals, who were both African American. (D.I. 155 Ex. D at CITYOO1032) According toPlaintiff, Capodanno and O'Donnell's campaign to eliminate the Network Division was raciallymotivated. (D.I. 142 Ex. A at 102) Plaintiff claimed that Capodanno and O'Donnell had beenoverheard
City employees making derogatory remarks about minorities and making remarks5Jones denies this claim. (D.I. 142 Ex. B at 50-53) Because the Court finds thatsummary judgment for the City is proper on numerous grounds, this is not a material dispute.
!ase 1:08-cv-00615-LPS Document 160 Filed 09/07/10 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 1645
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. Le v Wilmington D.ctDownload or PrintAdd To Collection348Reads1Readcasts0Embed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published bypropertyintangibleFollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansInfo and RatingCategory:Business/Law > Court FilingsRating:Upload Date:04/29/2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:No tagsFree download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or readfalse online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/91729404/Le-v-Wilmington-D-ct11/06/2012pdftextoriginal
Recommended6 p.Le v Wilmington Letterspropertyintangible290 Reads
More From This User13 p.Reservoir, Inc v Truesdellpropertyintangible52 Reads9 p.Taylor v Taylor Made Plastics Divorcepropertyintangible53 Reads6 p.Taylor v Taylor Made Plasticspropertyintangible56 Reads12 p.Craigslist Feb 12 TOUpropertyintangible37 Reads27 p.Craigslist v. 3Tapspropertyintangible52 Reads2 p.Craigslist Confirmation Pagepropertyintangible33 Reads46 p.Timegate Publishing Agreementpropertyintangible44 Reads2 p.O'Reillly Sponsorship Agreementpropertyintangible89 Reads7 p.Nisa Santiago file wrapperpropertyintangible84 Reads17 p.Melodrama Publ'g v Santiagopropertyintangible70 Reads4 p.LeFiell v. United Statespropertyintangible73 Reads22 p.Gerawn Farming v Rehrig Pacific Copropertyintangible80 Reads37 p.Melodrama C&D Letterpropertyintangible61 Reads21 p.Melodrama Publishing Complaintpropertyintangible32 Reads14 p.Melodrama Publishing Answerpropertyintangible23 Reads36 p.Melodrama Publishing Contractpropertyintangible54 Reads8 p.BuddyUSA Master Agreementpropertyintangible79 Reads20 p.XAC v. Deeppropertyintangible72 Reads19 p.Fresh Del Monte v. Del Monte Copropertyintangible103 Reads38 p.Shukh v. Segate Techpropertyintangible98 Reads13 p.Innovation Ventures LLC v Pittsburg Wholesale Grocers Incpropertyintangible117 Reads5 p.Innovation Ventures LLC Assignmentpropertyintangible61 Reads9 p.Innovation Ventures LLC Licensebackpropertyintangible85 Reads14 p.Fontana v Harrapropertyintangible112 Reads7 p.Minden Pictures Agency Agreementpropertyintangible32 Reads