Opinion ID: 538900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary Judgment Appeal

Text: 3 Courtney argues that summary judgment is disfavored in employment discrimination cases because the employer's intent, typically a factual determination, is at issue. In support of his claim that his discharge was motivated by discriminatory intent, he asserts that he was passed over for promotion from trainee to manager, and for promotion from manager of a smaller store to manager of a larger store. 2 He claims that Canyon placed non-black employees less qualified and less senior than he in those positions. He asserts further that Canyon treated him differently than it did other employees. 3 4 Canyon responds that Courtney was treated no differently than other employees and that its termination of Courtney was justified. Specifically, it contends that Courtney had been instructed not to do control reports during working hours, and that he continued to do so in defiance of this directive. In granting summary judgment, the district court determined that Courtney had failed to establish any admissible evidence from which to infer discriminatory conduct and ... therefore failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. It held further that, even if such a case had been established, Canyon had proffered a legitimate nondiscriminatory ground for dismissal which Courtney had failed to rebut by producing admissible evidence that the asserted reason for his dismissal was but a guise for discrimination. 5 In support of the breach of implied contract theory, Courtney alleges that certain sections of Canyon's Employee Handbook 4 altered the otherwise at will nature of employment. 5 Courtney asserts that the Handbook created an implied employment contract, violation of which is actionable. In response, Canyon emphasizes that its Employee Handbook affirms the noncontractual nature of its written policies and the at will nature of employment. 6 In granting summary judgment, the district court concluded that Courtney had failed to raise a material issue of fact as to the binding effect of the employee guidelines. 6 Courtney, in opposition to Canyon's motion for summary judgment as it related to defamation, alleges that the following actions and statements by Canyon personnel were defamatory. Upon Courtney's dismissal, the new manager of the store made a count of cash and inventory of store merchandise in front of customers. Second, Courtney alleges that in response to inquiries about his whereabouts by customers a store manager stated that Courtney had been terminated for doing something illegal. 7 The district court determined that the cash count and inventory were reasonable actions, consistent with the employer's rights, duties, and responsibilities. In addition, it concluded that Courtney had failed to offer admissible evidence that the alleged statements regarding illegal behavior were in fact made. 8 Finally, Canyon, with regard to Courtney's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, argued that the claim is barred by Hawaii's worker compensation statute. Alternatively, Canyon asserted that, absent facts to support a claim of wrongful discharge and to prove unreasonable conduct by Canyon, Courtney's claim for emotional distress was properly dismissed.