Aman v. Dillon Companies, Inc.

Filing 45

ORDER re 44 Motion to Clarify, by Judge John L. Kane on 4/10/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02973-JLK
MOE AMAN (f/k/a/ MOHAMMED AMAN),
Plaintiff,
v.
DILLON COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a KING SOOPERS, a Kansas Corporation
Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, DOC. 44
Kane, J.
Mr. Aman moves to clarify whether summary judgment on Mr. Aman’s thirteenth
claim for relief for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy was granted or
denied. While the Order at Doc. 42 concluded by summarizing which of Mr. Aman’s
thirteen claims would proceed to trial and inadvertently designated King Soopers’s
Motion for Summary Judgment on Mr. Aman’s thirteenth claim as denied, Mr. Aman
correctly points out that the motion was granted:
Mr. Aman has not presented any evidence that he had any
workers’ compensation rights to claim that he had not already
claimed before being discharged. Furthermore, there is no evidence
that any King Soopers’ employee thought that Mr. Aman was
exercising his workers’ compensation rights when he failed to
come in for his scheduled shifts. I GRANT summary judgment in
favor of King Soopers on this claim.
Id. at 37-38.

This position controls and I hereby amend the Order at Doc. 42 to conclude as
follows:
1

King Soopers’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 25 is GRANTED in regard to
1. Mr. Aman’s Third and Fourth Claims (racial discrimination based on
reassignment per Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a));
2. Mr. Aman’s Fifth Claim (discrimination violation of the ADA based on
discharge)
3. Mr. Aman’s Sixth Claim (violation of the ADA based on reassignment)
4. Mr. Aman’s Ninth and Tenth Claims (retaliation claims under Title VII and 42
U.S.C. § 1981(a) based on reassignment);
5. Mr. Mr. Aman’s Thirteenth Claim (wrongful discharge in violation of public
policy).
and is DENIED in regard to
6. Mr. Aman’s First and Second Claim (racial discrimination based on discharge
per Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) );
7. Mr. Aman’s Seventh and Eight Claims (discharge-based retaliation per Title
VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a);
8. Mr. Aman’s Eleventh Claim (retaliation under the ADA based on discharge);
and
9. Mr. Aman’s Twelfth Claim (hostile work environment).

Insofar as Mr. Aman attempts to turn the instant motion to clarify a line of
summary into a motion to reconsider the evidence on which I decided to grant summary
judgment in favor of King Soopers regarding Mr. Aman’s thirteenth claim, I decline the
2

invitation. Ms. Bouknight’s testimony involved a hypothetical case in which an
employee with a closed workers’ compensation case claims to have an aggravation of his
workers’ compensation injury. At the relevant time, Mr. Aman was an employee with a
closed workers’ compensation case who did not claim to have an aggravation of his
workers’ compensation injury.
Mrs. Bouknight testified that as of May 2008 Mr. Aman’s workers’
compensation claim was “over.” Ex.55 at p. 137:17-23. Mr. Aman
never presented King Soopers with any information suggesting he
had experienced an aggravation of his original injury such that he
would have a new workers’ compensation claim. Indeed, both his
MMI and IME stated substantially identical restrictions and
characterized them as permanent. Ex. 5 (MME); Ex. 25 (IME). The
IME was done March 18, 2008, five months after the MMI, and
does not indicate that Mr. Aman’s condition declined whatsoever
in the period between assessments.
Id. at 37-38.
In sum, for the reasons stated in the Order at Doc. 42 and repeated herein,
summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of King Soopers on Mr. Aman’s thirteenth
claim for relief for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

DATED:

April 10, 2014

BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane
John L. Kane, U.S. Senior District Judge

3