BARKER v. KEYSTONE POWDERED METAL CO.
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION that 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by KEYSTONE POWDERED METAL CO. is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 3/31/10. (lrw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM M. BARKER Plaintiff vs. KEYSTONE POWDERED METAL COMP., Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) )
C.A.No. 08-75Erie Magistrate Judge Baxter
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter
A.
Relevant Procedural History On March 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed the instant action claiming that Defendant Keystone
Powdered Metal Company retaliated against him by excluding him from the 2005 Retention Benefit Plan. In his one-count complaint, Plaintiff avers that this exclusion was done in retaliation for Plaintiff's filing of two previous EEOC charges (an age discrimination charge filed in August of 2004 and a retaliation charge filed in March of 2005). Plaintiff seeks monetary relief. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment (document # 21), Plaintiff has filed
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have voluntarily consented to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including the entry of a final judgment. Documents # 15, 17. 1
1
a brief in opposition (document # 27) and Defendant has filed a reply brief (document # 29). Defendant argues for summary judgment on three alternative bases: 1) Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation as there is no causal connection; 2) Defendant had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not including Plaintiff in the Plan; and 3) Barker's prior settlement agreement precludes him from participating in the Plan. The pending motion for summary judgment is ripe for disposition by this Court.
B.
Standard of Review - Motion for summary judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2) provides that summary judgment shall be
granted if the "pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(e) further provides that when a motion for summary judgment is made and supported, "an opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party." A district court may grant summary judgment for the defendant when the plaintiff has failed to present any genuine issues of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Krouse v. American Sterilizer Company, 126 F.3d 494, 500 n.2 (3d Cir. 1997). The moving party has the initial burden of proving to the district court the absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party's claims. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Country Floors, Inc. v. Partnership Composed of Gepner and Ford, 930 F.2d 1056, 1061 (3d Cir. 1990). Further, 2
"[R]ule 56 enables a party contending that there is no genuine dispute as to a specific, essential fact
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?