Opinion ID: 2514970
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Material Issues of Fact Precluded Summary Judgment on Mitchell's Cross-Motion.

Text: Mitchell asked the superior court to grant him summary judgment on his contract claims that Teck Cominco violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and wrongfully terminated his employment. He offered evidence that Teck Cominco had not disciplined or terminated other employees for sexual harassment, and Teck Cominco did not dispute his evidence. Mitchell also argued that because he did not engage in quid pro quo sexual harassment as a matter of fact or law, Teck Cominco breached its employment contract with him as a matter of law. Finally, he argued that as a matter of law Teck Cominco breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because it did not give Mitchell an opportunity to tell his side of the story during the investigation. Mitchell asks us to reverse the court's denial of his summary judgment motion. We conclude that the superior court properly denied Mitchell's summary judgment motion because disputed factual issues prevented entry of summary judgment on his claims. A party is not entitled to summary judgment simply because the non-moving party does not oppose summary judgment, [37] so the fact that Teck Cominco did not dispute some of the evidence Mitchell presented about other employees who engaged in sexual harassment does not mean that he is automatically entitled to summary judgment on that issue. Accepting and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Teck Cominco, as we must do when we evaluate Mitchell's motion: (1) Carla, at Mitchell's request, discussed both a summer job with Teck Cominco and a personal relationship with Mitchell, thus implicitly linking the two when she talked to L.B.; (2) Teck Cominco promptly and reasonably investigated L.B.'s complaint; (3) Teck Cominco reasonably concluded that Mitchell's conduct violated its sexual harassment policy; and (4) Teck Cominco reasonably terminated Mitchell because of his underlying conduct, his lack of candor during the investigation, and his abuse of company e-mail. This precludes the grant of Mitchell's cross-motion for summary judgment on his contract claims.