Brown v. Outback Steakhouse

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Dft's 30 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 2/11/2016. (STC)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ALVIN BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE,
Defendant.

Civil Case No.
5:14-cv-372-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

***
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining claim, which is for
breach of contract.

The motion has been fully briefed and the

Court, having considered the matter fully, will grant the motion
for the followings reasons.
I.
During the relevant time period, Plaintiff was the owner and
operator of Alpha Cleaning Services (“Alpha”).

Alpha provided

cleaning services at Defendant’s Outback Steakhouse Restaurants in
Fayette and Madison County, Kentucky, beginning in 1992 and ending
in 2013.

Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant entered into

oral contracts whereby Alpha would provide cleaning services for

two of Defendant’s restaurants.1

On April 2, 2013, during a face-

to-face meeting and with confirmation through a letter that same
day, Outback notified Plaintiff that Alpha’s services were being
discontinued.

Plaintiff now alleges that Defendant wrongfully

terminated the oral contracts based on Plaintiff’s complaints of
Outback personnel’s discriminatory comments.2

Further, Plaintiff

contends, the contract was terminated without adequate notice and
without just cause and that, as a result, he has suffered economic
loss.
In his deposition, Brown testified that in 1992, he formed an
oral agreement with Keith Hayden to “clean the floors, clean the
restrooms

and

maintain

cleaning

that

would

fit

the

health

department’s criteria” at one of the Outback Restaurants.

The

contract did not include a specific duration of time over which
the services would be performed.
per month for his services.
Terry

Netherton

Kentucky.

for

Outback agreed to pay him $1,600

He formed an identical agreement with

another

Outback

Restaurant

in

Lexington,

There were no other terms to the contracts.

1

  Plaintiff testified that he also cleaned Defendant’s Hamburg Pavilion
restaurant in Lexington, Kentucky, but there was no contract with respect to
this location, as he only cleaned it for a short period of time.
2
 As explained in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of September 9, 2015,
Plaintiff’s civil rights claims failed as a matter of law because independent
contractors are not protected under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. See DE 26.

2

II.
The standard for summary judgment mirrors the standard for a
directed verdict.
251 (1986).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

A grant of summary judgment is proper “if the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c).
The moving party bears the initial burden to show the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact.
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

Once that burden has been met, the

nonmoving party must “come forward with some probative evidence to
support its claim.”
1347 (6th Cir. 1994).

Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339,
A material fact is one that could affect

the outcome of the issue at trial, as determined by substantive
law.

See Niemi v. NHK Spring Co., Ltd., 543 F.3d 294, 298 (6th

Cir. 2008).

There is a genuine dispute as to a material fact if

the evidence shows that a reasonable jury could return a verdict
in favor of the nonmoving party.

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249;

Summers v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 885 (6th Cir. 2004).
The judge’s function is not to weigh the evidence, but to
decide whether there are genuine issues that warrant a trial.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Multimedia 2000, Inc. v. Attard, 374
3

F.3d 377, 380 (6th Cir. 2004).

The evidence must be construed in

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party when deciding
whether there is enough evidence to overcome a motion for summary
judgment.

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Summers, 368 F.3d at 885.
III.

As the Defendant points out succinctly in its Memorandum in
Support of Summary Judgment, as well as its Reply Brief, under
Kentucky law, if an employment contract fails to contemplate a
definite period of time, it may be terminated at will by either
party.

See Brownsboro Road Rest. v. Jerrico, Inc., 674 S.W.2d 40

(Ky. Ct. App. 1984), see also Wyant v. SCM Corp., 692 S.W.2d 814
(Ky. Ct. App. 1985) (Employee’s at-will employment could be ended
at any time, despite contention that 17-year tenure imposed implied
duty of good-faith dealing upon employer).

In his deposition,

Plaintiff conceded that the oral contracts did not cover a definite
time period.

He relies Buchholtz v. Dugan, 977 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Ky.

Ct. App. 1998) to advance the proposition that an oral agreement
can modify an employee’s at-will status. While that is an accurate
statement of the law, Plaintiff has provided no evidence, oral or
otherwise, that would have affected his status as an at-will
employee.

In general, at-will employees may be terminated for any

reason not prohibited by law.
541 (Ky. 2008).

Comm’r v. Solly, 253 S.W.3d 537,

“[A]n employer may discharge an at-will employee

for good cause, for no cause, or for a cause that some might view
4

as morally reprehensible.”

Id. (quoting Wymer v. JH Properties,

Inc., 50 S.W. 195, 198 (Ky. 2001)).

Outback told Brown that his

services were being terminated for financial reasons.
Based on the foregoing, there is no genuine issue of material
fact with respect to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.

The

facts, according to Plaintiff, reveal that he was an at-will
employee who could have been terminated for any lawful reason.
Accordingly,

IT

IS

ORDERED

that

Defendant’s

summary judgment, [DE 30], is hereby GRANTED.
This the 11th day of February, 2016.

5

motion

for