Penry v. Federal Mortgage Financial out of Topeka, 970 F. Supp. 833 (D. Kan. 1997)

D. Brad Bailey, Work environment regarding U.S. Atty., Topeka, KS, Paul F. Figley, Jeffrey L. Karlin, You.S. Dept. of Fairness, Civil Section, Arizona, *836 DC, Frank W. Desire for food, You.S. Dept. off Justice, Civil Office, Arizona, DC, to have U.S.

This problem is actually through to the court towards defendants’ Action for Summary Judgment (Doc. 104). Plaintiff has registered a beneficial Memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ Activity (Doc. 121). Defendants provides registered a reply (Doc. 141). This case pops up away from plaintiff’s allege from intense workplace and you will retaliation from inside the solution of Name VII of one’s Civil-rights Work regarding 1964, 42 You.S.C. 2000e, as well as deliberate infliction off emotional distress. To the grounds established less than, defendants’ motion is actually offered.

The next facts are possibly uncontroverted otherwise, when the controverted, construed in a white most favorable on plaintiff as the non-swinging cluster. Immaterial facts and you may truthful averments maybe not properly supported by the new checklist is actually omitted.

Government Mortgage Bank out of Topeka (“FHLB”) operating Michele Penry (“Penry”) due to the fact an excellent clerk within its equity institution from March 1989 to February 1994, very first in oversight away from Sonia Betsworth no credit check loans San Joaquin (“Betsworth”) immediately after which, beginning in November regarding 1992, according to the supervision away from Charles Waggoner (“Waggoner”)

FHLB hired Waggoner inside November regarding 1989 just like the collateral review director. Included in their requirements, Waggoner presented towards-web site inspections regarding security within borrowing loan providers. The newest guarantee personnel, in addition to Penry, Debra Gillum (“Gillum”), and Sherri Bailey (“Bailey”), therefore the guarantee opinion assistant, Sally Zeigler (“Zeigler”), grabbed transforms associated Waggoner on these evaluation trips. Since the equity review manager, Waggoner checked only the guarantee feedback secretary, Zeigler. The guy failed to watch the equity personnel up to the guy try entitled security manager within the November 1992. Out and about, but not, Waggoner is clearly in control and you may try guilty of researching the equity assistants you to then followed your.

Federal Financial Bank Regarding TOPEKA and its own agencies, and you will Charles R

During the time Waggoner worked with Penry, earliest as the co-staff immediately after which since the their supervisor, he engaged in make and therefore Penry says written an aggressive really works ecosystem in the meaning of Identity VII. Penry gift suggestions proof numerous cases of Waggoner’s alleged misconduct. These types of and other associated situation facts are established much more outline from the court’s conversation.

A courtroom will promote summary judgment through to a showing that there is no legitimate dilemma of procedure facts and that the movant try entitled to judgment since an issue of legislation. Provided. R.Civ.P. 56(c). This new code brings one “new mere existence of a few alleged factual disagreement involving the people will not overcome an or safely offered actions having bottom line judgment; the necessity would be the fact here getting no legitimate issue of thing fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Reception, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-forty eight, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). The brand new substantive rules makes reference to and therefore facts are situation. Id. on 248, 106 S. Ct. within 2510. A dispute more a material truth is genuine if research is such one to a reasonable jury could find toward nonmovant. Id. “Simply disputes more issues that might safely affect the results of this new fit underneath the ruling law often properly preclude the brand new admission out of conclusion view.” Id.

The newest movant provides the first weight away from showing the absence of a real dilemma of point truth. Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat’l Lab., 992 F.2d 1033, 1036 (10th Cir. 1993). New movant get launch the burden “from the `showing’ that is, mentioning on the district judge that there’s an absence of evidence to support the newest nonmoving party’s situation.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 You.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The brand new movant does not have to negate the newest nonmovant’s claim. Id. at 323, 106 S. Ct. in the 2552-53.