Opinion ID: 58529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mathis’s State Law Claims

Text: Lastly, Mathis challenges the district court’s entry of summary judgment on his state law negligent hiring and retention claim and its entry of judgment on his accrued vacation time claim without consideration of consequential damages. Because Mathis demonstrated no evidence of disputed fact that the company did not follow its internal policy to promptly investigate his sexual harassment complaint, and because again Mathis relies on his untimely “down time” claim as 5 Mathis also contends that he was owed another week’s worth of accrued vacation time under the company’s collective bargaining agreement; he claims he was owed three weeks, instead of two weeks time. This argument is without merit because Mathis neither cumulatively nor consecutively worked at the company for ten years, the required time for an employee to accrue three weeks of vacation time. 6 Mathis’s “down claim” claim raised here as part of his § 1981 claim was not timely brought before the district and magistrate courts and we similarly do not address it here. 10 evidence of continued harassment, we agree with the magistrate court’s recommendation to grant summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligent retention claim. See Ashmore v. J.P. Thatcher Co., Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1375 (M.D. Ga. 2004). Lastly, because under Georgia law the proper measure of damages for delay in performance would be the interest on use of the property withheld and because Mathis was paid the interest owed him, he has no further remedy under Georgia law on his vacation pay claim.7 See Sanders v. Robertson, 196 Ga.App. 739, 739, 397 S.E.2d 26, 27 (1990) (“[F]or delay in the performance of a contract, damages usually are for loss of the use of the property involved, for which the injured party may recover damages based on interest on the value of the property.”).