Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 197

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Any objections stated by the plaintiff in documents [#156, #157, #158, #160, & #161] are OVERRULED; the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 146 is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court; plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 81 is DENIED; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 115 is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/15/2013. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [#81]1 filed May 29, 2012; (2) the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [#115] filed August 16, 2012; and (3) the Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge [#146] filed November 13, 2012. The plaintiff filed
five separate documents [#156, #157, #158, #160, & #161], which, with a modicum of
judicial munificence, can be read as objections to the recommendation. The defendant
filed a response [#175] to the plaintiff’s objections. I overrule the plaintiff’s objections,
approve and adopt the recommendation, deny the plaintiff’s motion, deny the
defendant’s motion in part, and grant the defendant’s motion in part.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which the plaintiff objects. I have considered carefully the
1

“[#81]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

recommendation, the objections, and the applicable case law.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed her pleadings and other
filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v.
Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991).
The plaintiff, Kathleen Chytka, is a former employee of the defendant, Wright
Tree Service, Inc. In 2011, Wright Tree terminated Ms. Chytka’s employment. In her
complaint [#13], Ms. Chytka asserts claims under Title VII for hostile work environment,
gender discrimination, disparate treatment, and retaliation. In addition, Ms. Chytka
asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act. Finally, Ms. Chytka asserts state law claims for unjust enrichment and promissory
estoppel.
In the recommendation [#146], the magistrate judge analyzed thoroughly each of
the claims and the parties’ arguments in support of their cross-motions for summary
judgment. I agree with the analysis and conclusions of the magistrate judge. Having
reviewed the plaintiff’s objections [#156, #157, #158, #160, & #161] to the
recommendation, I conclude that the plaintiff has not stated any valid objection to the
recommendation.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That any objections stated by the plaintiff in documents [#156, #157, #158,
#160, & #161] are OVERRULED;
2. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#146] filed
2

November 13, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
3. That the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#81] filed May 29, 2012,
is DENIED;
4. That the plaintiff’s retaliation claim, her Eighth Claim for Relief, is DISMISSED
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
5. That the portions of the plaintiff’s age and gender discrimination claims
concerning the alleged failure to promote the plaintiff to Operations Manager, part of the
plaintiff’s Third and Fourth Claims for Relief, are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction;
6. That the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#115] filed August
16, 2012, is DENIED as to the plaintiff’s claim of gender discrimination to the extent that
claim is based on the defendant’s alleged failure to train the plaintiff, part of the
plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief;
7. That the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#115] filed August
16, 2012, is GRANTED as to each of the plaintiff’s other claims for relief;
8. That, thus, the one claim still pending in this case is the plaintiff’s claim of
gender discrimination to the extent that claim is based on the defendant’s alleged failure
to train the plaintiff, part of the plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief.
Dated February 14, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3