CA1: releases and local rules

Caban-Hernandez v. Phillip Morris USA, No. 06-1968.  This an affirmance of a summary judgment in favor of an employer in an employment discrimination case.  Selya continues to use big words that serve absolutely no purpose.  We get it!  You are a federal judge!  You didn’t get your job because of your political palatability.  You got your job because you are smart and have a large vocabulary.

The defendant was engaging in a corporate restructuring.  The plaintiffs were allowed to interview for new jobs provided they demonstrated some command of English.  The plaintiffs sued claiming this discriminated against them on the basis of their Puerto Rican origin, and under state law their wives sued, claiming that “hat Philip Morris's discriminatory actions toward their husbands had caused them (the wives) mental anguish and emotional distress.”  The plaintiffs got severance packages.  A motion for summary judgment was made, but the “district court determined that the counter-statement of facts upon which their opposition relied was not in conformity with the local rules.”  Keep reading.

The court also holds that it has jurisdiction despite an argument that final judgment wasn’t entered against one of the Phillip Morris entities.  However, the court looks at the record and concludes that the parties had agreed that the same entity was sued.  The rules provide that:

a party opposing a motion for summary judgment to accept, deny, or qualify each entry in the movant's statement of material facts paragraph by paragraph and to support any denials, qualifications, or new assertions by particularized citations to the record.

The court describes the response:

They admit that they did not furnish specific record citations to support their version of the facts but they nonetheless argue that their submission of selected excerpts (rather than unexpurgated documents) minimized the hardship to the district court and, thus, constituted substantial compliance with the strictures of Local Rule 56.

The First holds that the local rule is valid, and has a good reason. Therefore, the District Court was correct deeming the motion unopposed.

On the merits, the court holds that the defendants validly entered into a release in connection with a valid severance package.  Obviously the employment-lawyers amongst us will care about this.

Comments

[JFC]

You meant "employer" instead of "employee" in the first sentence (or "against" instead of "in favor of"). I wonder how often employees win on summary judgment.

[S. COTUS]

Thanks. Will correct it. I guess it is theoretically possible -- esp. if the pl has a smoking gun of some sort.