Penry v. Government Home loan Bank out of Topeka, 970 F. Supp. 833 (D. Kan. 1997)

D. Brad Bailey, Work environment from U.S. Atty., Topeka, KS, Paul F. Figley, Jeffrey L. Karlin, U.S. Dept. away from Fairness, Civil Section, Washington, *836 DC, Frank W. Food cravings, U.S. Dept. out-of Justice, Civil Office, Washington, DC, to have U.S.

This issue is through to the courtroom into the defendants’ Action to own Summation View (Doc. 104). Plaintiff keeps submitted an effective Memorandum opposed to Defendants’ Action (Doctor. 121). Defendants have submitted an answer (Doctor. 141). This example pops up off plaintiff’s claim regarding intense work environment and retaliation inside the solution out of Name VII of your own Civil rights Act out-of 1964, 42 You.S.C. 2000e, and also for deliberate infliction away from mental distress. Toward reasons set forth below, defendants’ action was granted.

Another facts are both uncontroverted otherwise, in the event the controverted, construed for the a light extremely positive with the plaintiff once the non-swinging class. Immaterial affairs and you will factual averments maybe not securely supported by brand new listing is omitted.

Government Mortgage Financial regarding Topeka (“FHLB”) employed Michele Penry (“Penry”) due to the fact a clerk with its security agency out of March 1989 to March 1994, first beneath the supervision off Sonia Betsworth (“Betsworth”) and, beginning in November from 1992, within the oversight from Charles Waggoner (“Waggoner”)

FHLB rented Waggoner inside November out-of 1989 as collateral opinion director. Within his commitments, Waggoner conducted towards the-website monitors out-of equity within credit financial institutions. The brand new guarantee personnel, along with Penry, Debra Gillum (“Gillum”), and you may Sherri Bailey (“Bailey”), therefore the security feedback secretary, Sally Zeigler (“Zeigler”), grabbed converts accompanying Waggoner in these check trips. Due to the fact security review movie director, Waggoner tracked precisely the collateral opinion secretary, Zeigler. The guy don’t monitor all equity personnel up to the guy are titled equity manager inside the November 1992. Out and about, although not, Waggoner is demonstrably in charge and you may was responsible for contrasting this new collateral personnel you to observed him.

Federal Financial Financial From TOPEKA and its particular agencies, and you will Charles Roentgen

At that time Waggoner worked with Penry, first as co-worker and then just like the their management, he engaged in conduct which Penry claims authored an intense work environment when you look at the meaning of Name VII. Penry gift suggestions proof of numerous cases of Waggoner’s so-called misconduct. These types of and other related point the fact is established much more outline regarding the court’s discussion.

A courtroom should provide bottom line judgment on a showing there is not any genuine dilemma of topic facts which the movant try entitled to view due to the fact a question of legislation. Fed. Roentgen loans Placerville.Civ.P. 56(c). The new signal will bring that “the new simple existence of a few alleged factual conflict between the events cannot defeat an otherwise properly supported activity to have summary view; the requirement would be the fact there feel zero legitimate issue of matter facts.” Anderson v. Freedom Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-forty-eight, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Brand new substantive law relates to and that truth is thing. Id. in the 248, 106 S. Ct. in the 2510. A dispute more than a content truth is genuine if the proof is really that a fair jury may find into the nonmovant. Id. “Simply conflicts over affairs that might securely impact the outcome of this new match beneath the governing legislation usually properly prevent the entryway from realization judgment.” Id.

The newest movant contains the initial weight of appearing its lack of a bona-fide problem of matter facts. Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat’l Lab., 992 F.2d 1033, 1036 (tenth Cir. 1993). Brand new movant may launch the weight “by the `showing’ which is, citing towards area legal there is an absence from proof to help with the new nonmoving party’s instance.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 You.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The fresh movant does not have to negate the fresh new nonmovant’s claim. Id. at 323, 106 S. Ct. at the 2552-53.